



E 

%9. 





Pass L' -ff !& 



Book: 



THE 



fiiE^llAN ii&H 



AND 



SLAYEHOLDIIG 



BY REV. WM. W. PATTON, 

PASTOR OF THE FOURTH CONG. CHURCH, HARTFORD, CT. 



Reprinted J icith alterations, from the Charter Oak. 



HARTFORD : 

WILLIAM H. BURLEIGH.. ...PRINTER. 

1846. 



THE AMERICA! BOARD 



AND 



SLAVEHOLDIIG. 



THE PARTIES. 

The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions 
has come in collision with the rising anti-slavery sentiment of the 
world. The great organ of the Congregational and Presbyterian 
churches of America, the eldest-born of the sisterhood of benevolent 
^ocieties, has come in collision with the greatest of modern reforms. 
The friends of the slave declare that the influence of the Board has 
been with the oppressor and against those who are laboring and 
praying for the deliverance of the down-trodden — that the crime of 
claiming property in man has been extenuated, excused, and even 
defended, as consistent with a good Christian character, and as fur- 
nishing no bar to admission into the church — that slaveholders have 
been honored and endorsed by election as corporate members and 
missionaries, that 'robbery' fof the slave) has been received as 'sac- 
rifice,' by the indiscriminate solicitation and reception of funds 
among slaveholders, and that churches have been established under 
Iheir supervision, into which slaveholders are unhesitatingly receiv- 
ed. It will be observed that I have not spoken of a 'collision be- 
iween the American Board and the Anti-Slavery Society,' which is 
the heading of a series of articles on this subject in the New York 
Evangelist. I know of no reason why the parties should be so de- 
scribed, unless it be to excite prejudices against the anti-slavery 
cause. It has often seemed to me that a portion of the prominent 
ministers and church members owed the anti-slavery cause a deep 
grudge, which they were determined eternally to cherish, because 
they were not its parents. The other benevolent societies were be- 
gotten in their presence, or at least they were on hand at the bap- 
tism, and had an influence in the process of education. But this 
anti-slavery cause has grown into its present position of importance 
without their concurrence and despite their opposition. It never 
asked their permission to be born, nor to live after it was born, and 
when they frowned upon it, it would not die. They moved earth 
against it, (that is, the ecclesiastical earth,) and for various rea- 
sons, induced presbyteries, associations, synods, assemblies, 
and conventions, to denounce the infant cause and to strangle 
it while in the cradle. But the set time for the deliverance of 
Uie slave had come. 'For the oppression of the poor, for the sigh- 



4 

irtg of the needy, now will I arise, said the Lord; I will set him in 
safety from hiai that pufFeth at him.' God smiled, and it grew and 
became a giant. But these individuals can never forget that, by 
their own guilty reluctance, they have been deprived of the honor 
of originating and carrying forward this cause, and they regard itas 
Sarah did the son ofHagar, when she said, 'Cast out this bondwo- 
man and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir 
with my son, even with Isaac,' or, paraphrased and applied, it would 
read thus : 'Cast out from your sympathies, your prayers, your 
meetings, your alms, the bonduien in this land and the society which 
professes to care for them : for the bondman's society shall not be 
admitted to the churches, along with 'our^ Bible, Tract and Mission 
Societies.' There are many who have not yet become convinced 
that good can come out of Nazareth, and supposing that the mass 
of the church still sympathize with them, would fain represent that 
the opposition to the IBoard comes altogether from this hated and 
anathematized anti-slavery society. Cut this is wholly incor- 
rect, for 

1. There is now no national anti-slavery society recognized.by aW 
abolitionists, as at the head of the enterprize. 2. No anti-slavery 
society, as such, has memorialized the Board on the subject of sla- 
very. 3. The memorialists are not all members of an anti-slavery 
.society. 4. Many ecclesiasii(;al bodies have, since the meeting of 
the Board, protested against its doctrine and report. 5. Remon- 
strances of a similar nature have come from Canada and from 
over the Atlantic. Deny it as they may, the Board has pla- 
ced itself across the channel along which the united and rising 
and swelling anti slavery sentiment of the WORLD is rushing. 
The despised band of 'fanatics' has increased to an army, and accor- 
ding to prophecy, 'the little one has become a thousand, and the 
small one a strong nation.' Their words of truth have been 
scattered like living coals on the conscience, and have 'gone 
down,' as Garrison said, not into oblivion, but 'into the hearts of 
the people.' Thousands not nominally connected with them, stand 
ready to act decidedly when the issue comes. Let this be plainly 
understood, and in its corroboration let me quote the concluding 
portion of an indignant remonstrance just received from Scotland, 
having been adopted by the Gla.-^gow Emancipation Society's Cora- 
luittee, after receivit)gthe Report of the American Board : 

'•So far as the influence of this Report may extend, it can but 
work evil, and only evil, to the cause of Liberty and Christianity. 
Its tendency appears to us to be to establish principles subversive 
of the foundation of moral government, viz: 

1. That holding and using human beings as property, and breed- 
ing and trading in slaves, are consistent with a 'credible profession 
of Christianity,' and that ceasing from these sins, is not included in 
the Gosipel idea of 'Repentance and Faith in Jesus Christ.' 

2. That a wrong done to man is le.-^s sinful, in proportion as it 
becomes 'iniimately interwoven with the relations and uioveaient* 
of the social system.' 

3. That slaveholders, polygamists, concubines, thieves and rob- 
bers, become less guilty and more worthy of Christian confidence 



and respect, in proportion as their numbers increase, and as they 
are enabled to band together and to pass laws to legalize and justi- 
fy their evil deeds, and make them essential elements of the social 
stale. 

These principles seem to us to constitute the basis of this Report. 
On behalf of the Committee of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, 
we therefore wish to record our earnest protest against it; and 
against the slaveholding religion which the Board and iis supporters 
are seeking to propagate among the heathen, as the religion of Him 
who came to 'break every yoke and let the oppressed go free,' and 
who forbids iiis followers to 'join hands with thieres, or to be par- 
takers with adulterers.' 

John Murray, ^ ^ . • » 
\AT Si • } Secretaries. 

Wm. Smeal, 5 

OTHER SOCIETIES INVOLVED. 

It may seem singular to some, that the Board should be singled 
out from the circle of societies, and made the object of special at- 
tack ; — and it may be asked, 'are they sinners above all other soci- 
eties, because they have suffered such things?' In reply, and to 
the other societies, I may say. 'I tell you nay; but except ye re- 
pent, ye shall all likewise perish,' in the esteem of the friends of the 
slave. 

For my own part, I am free to confess, that the connection of the 
Board with slaveholding has not been more reprehensible, and per- 
haps not as much so, as that of the Bible and Tract Societies, and I 
may also add, the Home Missionary Society. Look at the facts in 
the case. The Bible Society professes to do its utmost to give the 
Bible to the world. In this land are three millions of slaves, desti- 
tute ofthe Bible, and forl)ia'den by law to have it. What has the 
Bible Society said or done ahont this fact, which comes directly 
within the scope of their operations? As far as I can learn, a&50- 
lutely nothing. The public has yet to learn froui any of their annu- 
al reports, or from the speeches at their anniversaries, that such a 
fact is true. A few years since, the Society announced that it had 
supplied all the destitute families in the United States who were 
willing to receive it, with aco(»vofthe Scriptures, while they knew 
that there were two hundred and fifty thousand families, or one-sixth 
of all the families in the land, and nearly one half of the destitute 
families in the country, who had not even had the Bible offered to 
them! In their reports and Anniversary Addresses, the Roman 
Catholic Priests and the Pope are most heartily cursed because 
they withhold the Bible from the common people. Why is there 
such studied silence about the guilt of Protestants at the South, 
who will not permit their slaves to have the Bible ? There are but 
two millions of Catholics in this country kejit without the Bible, 
and there are three millions of slaves in the same destitute condi- 
tion. Why speak so boldly and frequently ofthe former, and shrink 
timidly into silence about the latter? More aiight be said concern- 



6 

jng this Society, were their conduct the particular subject of these 

articles.* 

Look now at the Tract Society. It has been pretty well chastis- 
ed of late tor its immorality in altering the facts of history and the 
sentiments of authors, and it may seem cruel to inflict new atripea 
on a fresh accouul— but the truth musit out. This Society professes 
to act through the press in promoting holiness and overthrowing 
siu. In the prosecution of this laudable design, it has published 
tracts against adultery, theft, sabbath-breakirjg, lotteries, gambling, 
intemperance, &c. Did there ever issue from their 'Hou e.' how- 
ever, a tract against the great ciiuie of majisteating , or slaveholding? 
Never, Why not ? It surely is a sin, a couimou sin, a great sin, 
forbidden by every principle of the Bible, and moreover prevalent 
in our land. Yet the Committee never would issue a tract 
on that subject, no, not one of the mildest kind — they would 
not administer a homoepathic dose! One gentleman offered to 
place in their hands fifty dullars to be proposed according to cua- 
torn, asa premium for the best tract on that subject, but they alto- 
gether scouted the idea. 

The connection of the Home Missioniiry Society with slavehold- 
ing. arises fiom their aiding churches in the slave States, into which 
slaveholders, remaining such, are received. Thus the money of 
abolitionists is used to build up pro-slavery churches, just such as 
have cursed the South, and sanctified the system and practice, till ii 
has increased fourfold. 

These facts, new as they may be to some, have been familiar to 
intelligent abolitionists for years, and have caused greatgrief. Tliey 
loved the objects for which these societies wereloiuied. and they 
loved the poor slave, yet here stood the benevolent associations of 
the day leagued together against the skive, striking hands with his 
oppressors, and practically endorsing the oppression What were 
they to do ? What they did — determine that this state of things 
should be reversed, that the community should be made to see that 
opposition to oppression was a part of the Gospel, and that every 
Society which undertook to carry the Gospel, should understand 
that their influence and action should be against slavery, vviienevHr 
they metitinthe prosecution of their work. Abolitionists (though 
often charged with it) never asked benevolent societies to ibrsake 
their appropriate object, and to become anti slavery societies. They 
only asked that, as they met slavery, in their respective Jidiis, in ifte 
regular prosecution of their work, they would aci against it, and not 
for it — would preach an anti-slavery, not a pro-slavery Gospel. 



*A number of years since, the sum of $5000 was guaranteed to the Bible Socie- 
ty, on condition th.it it should be used in su|pplyin«r the slaves wiih ihe Word of 
God. The dunution was rejected '. In 1841, a Bible Agent was arrested in New- 
Orleans for ofteriiig the Bible to a slave W hen brought before the Court he 
pleaded ignorance of the law, and was on that {rrouiid ideated, the Judge declar- 
ing that the Agent hid but just escaped the penitentiary, and warning him never 
to repeat his act, an assurance to winch effect, was given by the Agent, or the N. 
Orleans Society. Yet the American Bible Society never remonstrated, never ad- 
verted to this interfereoce with their object. 



WHY SINGLE OUT THE BOARD ? 

This question willnatnmlly and properly be asked at this stage of 
our inquiries. The answer may be given in a few words. Why, 
when many cases of a similar nature are pending, do the parties 
agree to have only one tried in the courts ? Because the final de- 
cision of that will settle the others, as they all stand or fall together. 
In like manner the Benevolent Societies occupy a similar position, 
and if the community can be so enlightened that under the uifluence 
of public opinion, one of the number shall be brought on to right 
ground, the others must follow. The American Board was selected 
because the facts in connection with it, providentially called the at- 
tention of abolitionists to it, and as they began there, so they con- 
tinue to strike at this pillar of slaveholding, hoping that soon suc- 
cess will crown their efforts, and thus the way l)e prepared for all 
the Societies to exert, as called for, a wholesome anti-slavery influ- 
ence. 

OCCASION OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

For forae years past, abolitionists have been remonstrating witK 
the Board for their connection with slaveholding, by honorary and 
corporate members, slaveholding missionaries, fundd derived from 
unpaid toil, and the like: but during the last two years, these top- 
ics have attracted but little attention, compared with the notice ta- 
ken of a fact known for many years to the 'Prudential Committee' 
of the Board, but only recently discovered by the religious public. 
It will be the best stated in the language of those who in 1844 me- 
morialized the Board on the subject. 

" Your memorialists are informed that slavery is actually tolera- 
ted in the churches under the patronage of the Board among the 
Choctaws and other Indian tribes, by the admission of slaveholding 
members." 

The Committee, to whom the memorial was referred, reported 
that year only in part, requesting a year for opportunity to ascer- 
tain all the facts, and to present their final report, but stating that 
'they see no reason to charge the missionaries among the Choc- 
taws, or any where else, with either a violation or neglect of duty.' 

The next year, (Sept. 1845,) at Brooklyn, the Committee made 
their final report, admitting the facts charged, but proceeded in a 
labored argument to justify the practice of receiving slaveholders 
to the mission churches, which reportthe Board unanimously adop- 
ted. Upon this point, the friends of the slave take issue with the 
Board, contending that no slave //oWe?-, properly so called, ought to 
be admitted at the present day to the church of Christ. 

If there be any guilt in the connection of the mission churches 
with slaveholding, the Board has made that guilt its own, by sol- 
emnly and unanimously endoising it as right, and putting forth a 
document in justification thereof. They have acted intelligently 
and deliberately. The Committee took a year to ascertain the 
facts, and the Board had a year in which, on the supposition th« 



8 

facts alleged were correct, to study their Bible, to seek light in pray- 
er, and to revolve the subject in all its phases, before their minds. 
The twelve months passed, and the Board reassembled to record 
tlieir indgnient. in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and forty-five, being thirty eight-years and six months after the Brit- 
ish Parliament declared the slave-trade to be piracy, thatslavehold- 
ing was not an overt sin, which ought to exclude its perpetrator 
from the churches under their care ! It would seem that the bare 
statement of the position taken was sufficient to reveal its atrocity, 
and to commend its defenders to the Roman Catholic Bishop, Bar- 
tholomew de las Casas. (who is said to have first proposed the es- 
tablishment of a regular system of commerce in the inhabitants of 
Africa,) as his faithful followers and copyists. It seems to have 
been the lot of slavery always to have enjoyed the protection of the 
Church. 

THE REPORT ON SLAVEHOLDING. 

It will be proper to make some reference to this document, as 
containing the latest exposition of the views of the Board.* 

It is cheerfully to be stated at the outset, that many commenda- 
ble rebukes of slavery, as a system, are contained in that document. 
1 have not room to quote them, but my readers may rely upon my 
word, that the system is unequivocally denounced and branded as un- 
righteous and unchristian. I find no fault with the Board for a with- 
holding of opinion or for erroneous doctrine quoad hoc. But [ rnav 
be permiled to inquire, what the pages so occupied have to do with 
the simple point submitted ? The memorialists had not requested 
the Board to denounce the system, had not complained that the mis- 
sion churches defended the system ; but they asked the Board to 
speak out concerning the practice, to rebuke the personal, individu- 
al sin of slave-Z/oWinff. Why, then, does this famous report, laud- 
ed by many as the very essence of wisdom, entirely avoid a discus- 
sion of what constitutes s\a\'e-holdi7ig, as a personal act or practice, 
and whether it involves sin in all cases ? Tliese topics would have 
been in place and to the point, but their discussion would have se- 
riously embarrassed the Committee and the Board. Unan'mity 
was the idol before which e\ery ihing was sacrificed. Therefore, the 
system wasdenounced andthe practice incidentally defended. When 
a report on slaveholding can satisfy and unite men whose senti- 
ments are so dissimilar as those of Prof Stowe and Dr. Wisner, 
there must be a double meaning or an obscure meaning to the doc- 
ument. 

The main argument of the Report, after all, consists of the intro- 



*I see that the Emancipator speaks as though the Prudential Committee had ta- 
ken a step in advance of the late action of the Roard in consequence of a circular 
letter havingbeen senttothc missionarifs. The following extract from a letter 
received by the writer, from one ()f the Prudential ( ommittee, will set that rumor 
right. He writes under date of March 9th : — "The Circular to the Cherokees, 
A-c, Missionaries, is probably an old affair. We have done nothing new about 
that case." From this it appears that, if Secretary Green has written .such a let- 
ter to the missionaries as the Kmaucipator fetate.s, be has done eo wholly on his 
individual authority. 



duction, in which five principles are stated as binding upon all who* 
conduct missions. The first refers to the New Testament, as the 
only infallible guide in pri)pagating the Gospel, and regulating the 
discipline of Churches. To this 1 fully assent, with the remark, 
that we are rather to seek for the principles on which the Apostles 
acted, than for the specific things done, as the former are univer- 
sally applicable, while the latter are of no authority, beyond their 
peculiar circumstances and occasions For instance, while Chris- 
tians seek among the facts of the New Testament for the principles 
of Church Government, they do not feel bound to adopt the spe- 
cific arrajigements in all their minutiEe, which then obtained ; and in 
accordance with this view, we find that no denomination conforms, 
in all it? regulations, to the primitive model- The Apostles acted in 
view of the age in which ihey lived, and the country where the 
churches were located, and if we imitate them, not according to 'the 
letter which killeth,' but according to 'the spirit which giveth life,' 
we also shall act in view of the present age, and of present coun- 
tries. 

The second principle laid down in the Report, is thus expressed — 
*' The primary object aimed at in missions, should be to bring men 
to a saving knowledge of Christ, by making known to them the way 
of salvation through his cross. It has regard to individual charac- 
ter, and is an object simple in itself, and purely spiritual." To this, 
also, rightly interpreted, 1 cordially assent. Let me ask, however, 
^vhetheI a man is brought to 'a saving knowledge of Christ,' by 
being kept in ignorance of his sins ? Does not repentance make a 
part of the religion of Christ, and does not repentance consist in a 
hearty renunciation ofallsin .' Is it no sin to deny liberty to a fel- 
low man — to claim property in a fellow-man — to practically maintain 
the horrible chattel principle, with regard to human beings ? We 
are urged to remember that Christianity 'has regard to the individu- 
al character,' that the object of Missions is 'purely spiritual.' Yes,and 
this practice of slave/toWwff is an 'individual,' personal afffiir, per- 
taining to a man's 'spiritual' interests, as the slaveliolder will real- 
ize at the last day ; and one ground of our complaint is that the 
Board in dealing with slaveholding, abanaons the very principle 
here laid down, by denouncing </te system, while it defends the indi- 
ridual practice. What we desire, is, that the missionaries will go to 
each individual and call nponhira to cease to do evil, instead of wast- 
ing words about the general system Thus viewed, it will be found 
that opposition to slaveholding, andto all oppression, comes strictly 
within the limits of that 'primary object,' so cautiously defined. 

The third position affirms that baptism and the Lord's supper, are 
designed for all who give credible evidence of repentance and faith 
in Christ, and are of course to be administered to all such among the 
heathen. This is an important point, and should be calmly viewed. 
Whetherl would assenttoii. depends entirely upon the interpreta- 
tion put upon it. The assertion made is a sweeping one, and in its 
present nnqualified foim,can with difficulty, if at all, be maintained. 
One thing is certain, none of the Pastors and Chnrches who patron- 
ize the Board, practice according to their own rule. They not only, 
require a Christian experience and life previous to admission into 



10 

their churches, but also an orthodox creed. They will admit that 
a person might give evidence of piety, who, nevertheless, by some 
perversity of intellect or education, did not believe in the full divini- 
ty of the Saviour. Yet they would not hesitate to refuse admission 
to such a person, on the ground of a general principle that must be 
sustained. Now, why be strict as to the theory of religion, and lax 
as to its practice ? VVhy reject a man for an error in his creed, and 
admit him notwithstanding an error in his life ? But it will be said 
that the Report alludes to the churches among the heathen, where 
there is but one to which the convert can belong, and where, conse- 
qnently, the rules must be less strict. To this I answer, less strict, 
if you please, as to creeds, but not as to morals. But the Board 
have cut themselves oft" from any such retreat, by the universal terms 
of their proposition. The inference is indeed particular, the conclu- 
sion specifies, by way of application, the heathen, but ihe premises 
are without qualification or limit. "As the ordinances of baptism 
and the Lord's Supper are obviously designed by Christ to be 
the means of grace ibr all who give credible evidence of repentance 
and faith in him," &c. There is no explaining away this doctrine, 
so explicitly stated, without giving up the whole Report as inconclu- 
sive and erroneous, for it is the foundation of the whole. I boldly 
state, then, that the third 'fundamental' principle of the Report is 
practically repudiated by every chuich and pastor who sustains the 
Board, and that the Board are endeavoring to defend the con- 
duct of the missionaries among the Choctaws, by putting forth a 
principle which, as stated, they do not themselvrs receive. 

But let us examine this point farther, for abolitionists are not afraid 
to look the Report lull in the face, though they are olten told that 
it ought to satisfy them to know that it was nnanimonsly adopted by 
a body of great and wise men, composed of Doctors of Divinity, 
Professors and Presidents of Colleges and Theolological Semina- 
ries, and Honorables and Excellencies.* But the old adage may be 
true here, 'Great men make great mistakes.' We need notfear, then, 
to consider well all the positions of this extraordinary document. I 
might safely admit the truth of this third proposition, and even of 
the application made to the case of the Choctaw slaveholders, and 
yet entirely dissent from the doctrine of the Board. I might admit 
that in consequence of the blameworthy concealment of the truth, 
inconsequence of the suppression of the anti-slavery part of the 
Gospel, slaveholders may have hitherto become Christians and thu3 
entered the church of right as far as they were concerned. The 
fault was in the missionaries, and the question is, shall they hereaf- 
ter preach as heretofore, but a part of the truth, so that men can be- 
come Christians, can be converted, still remaining slaveholders ? 
This is the very point of my complaint, that the missionaries keep 
the people so in the dark, that when they have actually done all that 



* If any should complain that my language hore partakes too much of vulgar 
cant, I wouliJ remind such thai 1 am only staling the argument in behalf of :he 
Board as pressed on me by its advocates, who argue from the high standing of 
the corporate members to the righteousness of their conduct. If it borders on the 
ridiculous, it is their fault, not miue. 



11 

they know or were ever told was duty, they still are slaveholders !* 
Much exultation has been had because Rev. A. A. Phelps, at the 
meeting of the Board, refused to answer Dr. Hawes categorically, 
whether a slaveholder could be a Christian? Bro. Phelps must an- 
swer for himself as to his silence, but the question does not appear 
to me in the least puzzling. Can a slaveholder be a Christian .' — 
Yes; provided he has never had the sin of his course properly 
laid before him — No, if he has enjoyed such instruction. This 
simple test makes the case plain with regard to the Cherokee and 
Choctaw slaveholders, and completely destroys the battery opened 
tipon our position by this third principle, even if it be admitted. — 
We reply to the Board thus : You atfirm that the ordinances are 
to be administered to "all who give credible evidence of repentance 
and faith." This we are willing, for the argument's sake, to admit, 
but we contend that it harmonizes perfectly with our principles ; 
for we do not allow that those Choctaw slaveholders can "give cred- 
ible evidence of repentance and faith," if the missionaries have 
faithfully preached the whole truth on the subject of slaveholding. 
You must then choose, according to our view of the case, one or 
the other horn of this dilemma. Assert that the Choctaw slavehold- 
ers do give credible evidence ofconversion, and therefore ought to 
be admitted into the church, and you condemn your missionaries, 
for such conversions could only occur by their keeping back the 
truth on the subject of human rights. On the other hand, allow that 
the slaveholders in question do not furnish evidence of piety, and 
your own principle excludes them from the church. The Board 
somehow wish to compass a moral impossibility ; that is, to endorse 
the piety of the slaveholders, and at the same time to affirm that 
•they see no reason to charge the missionaries with either a viola- 
tion or neglect of duty." It must be evident to an unprejudiced 
mind, that the piety of a slaveholder, to be real, must have had its 
birth amid darkness — a darkness for which the missionaries are re- 
sponsible. Allowing, then, that the third principle of the Report 
defends the entrance of the slaveholders into the church, it does it at 
the expense of the reputation of the missionaries. If the missiona- 
ries would pursue the right plan, there would be no conversions in 
slaveholding, but always/torn slaveholding, so that this famous third 
principle would not even apparently be inconsistent with the 
demands of the friends of freedom. 

The fourth principle affirms that the missionaries are the proper 
judges of the piety of the professed converts, which I leave with 
the simple remark, that they are the judges, responsible, however 
to the churches for the principles on which they proceed. The 
principles, the churches may, and ought to determine; the specific 



*A correspondent of the Emancipator, writes from Georgia, under date of 
April 30th — "While in Missouri I met with a young man who was recently con- 
nected as a teacher with the Missionaries among the Choctaws and Cherokeee, 
who are sustained by the 'American Board.' Here, he said, the Indians were 
taught that Slavery is sanctioned by tha Bible. He remarked that he had often 
heard the Missionaries reasoning from the Bible in favor of Slavery, after 
the fashion of Dr. Rice of Cincinnati, and other divinea. Slaves Were employed 
fo nearly all the families of the Missioaaries." 



12 

application of them must, in the nature of the case, be entrusted 
to the missionaries. 

The fifth and last principle is, that after admission to the church. 
Christians are to be instructed so that their graces may be developed. 
This is, beyond doubt true; but not in such a sense as to mean that 
immoralities of life, such as slaveholding, are to be left unrebuked 
till the pracliser is in the church. The Bible no wiere affirms 
such a doctrine. But this involves a question which will be hereaf- 
ter discussed. 

To sum up, then, the 'wisdom' of the Board as to these five 'fun- 
damental' positions, just as far as they have any rational meaning, 
and are at all applicable, they are the merest truisms, and the Report 
might as well have adduced the multiplication table in support of its 
views. They avail nothing in making out a case in opposition to 
the views of abolitionists. 

The remainder of the Report is occupied with a statement of facts 
in regard to the missions in question, with an argument as to the 
mode in which social sins are to be treated, arid with an attempt so 
to discriminate between the system and the individual practice of 
slaveholding, as to make the latter compatible with church member- 
ship. 

It appears that there are thirty-five slaveholders in the mission 
churches among the Choctavvs and Cherokees, which embrace in 
all, eight hundred and forty-three members, of whom one hundred 
and fifty-two are slaves. 

The Report also condemns the laws which prohibit slaves from 
being taught to read, embarrass emancipation, &c. 

Although the document is said to maintain the ground that slave- 
holding, of itself, is not sinful, yet once an expression is used which 
implies a contrary doctrine — a doctrine of which Dr. Bacon classic- 
ally remarked — 'The churches won't stand such nonsense.' The 
phrase occurs — 'Holding slaves, or any thing else involving what is 
morally wrong.' But it may have been an oversight, since Dr. 
Bacou, in his article in the N. Y. Evangelist, characterizes the doc- 
trine that slaveholding is essentially and always sinful, as a 'mis- 
erable, paltering, juggling sophism, that can have no better effect 
than to mislead and madden enthusiastic mmds, and to irritate the 
passions of the slaveholder, while it sears his conscience.' We may, 
however, have occasion to look at the Doctor's analysis of slave- 
holding, before we are done, that we may ascertain what right he 
had to pronounce such a judgment. 

The various points of the Report slill undiscussed, will be noti- 
ced hereafter, in connection with certain fundamental positions yet 
to be established. 

EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS. 

Since commencing this discussion, I find from conversation with 
certain ministerial brethren, that a portion of my remarks have been 
misunderstood. It has been charged upon me, that I have slan- 
dered the ministers and Churches of the whole land, who have 
not fallen in with the views of abolitionists, affirming that they 



18 

entertain an eternal grudge against the anti-slavery cause, beranse 
ihey did not originato and could not control it. Now, it will be 
seen by referring to my articles, that allusion was made lo 'a portion, 
of the prominent ministers and church members,' not of Coiniecti- 
cut, particularly, nor of the patrons of the Board, particularly, but 
as iwy subsequent remarks show, of the land in general, including 
the principal denominations. Why should remarks of 'a portion' 
be applied to all ? Let it be noticed, moreover, that I do not af- 
Jirm that those referred to, entertained the grudge for the reason sug- 
gested, but I threw it out as an impression, which their conduct and 
the remarks of their followers had made on my mind. My words 
are, 'It has often seemed tome,'' &c. I would not directly charge the 
fact in question, because I am not able to search their hearts, and 
because I would charitably /tope 'better things, though I thus speak,' 
yet I must honestly confess, that many things which prominent men 
have said and done, have painfully impressed me, (and I may add, 
many others also,) with the view stated. I may view their conduct 
with prejudice, and be blameworthy for enteriaining the thought, 
still I must say as before, so 'it has often seemed to me.' I acknowl- 
edge that this particular subject is aside from the special object of 
my articles, but as those who advocate the opposite position, take 
occasion freely to give their impressions of abolitionists and their 
motives, so, as an incidental matter, I used the same freedom 
with regard to 'a portion' of anti-abohtionists. 

Another point needs to be set in a right light. I have said that 
the Board sacrificed everything to unanimity. It has been suppo- 
sed that I intended to represent the Board as a parcel of tricUish, 
dishonest, unprincipled men, in whom no confidence should be pla- 
ced. Such a thought vvas far from my breast. On the contrary, I 
doubt not, that as a body, they have acted with no conscious pur^ 
pose to trample on principle, and that they are entitled lo our con- 
fidence and love as Christian men, who wish to serve Jesus Christ, 
and promote his kingdom. Stlil, in perfect consistency with that, 
I may hold that their deep interest in the point at issue, their pre- 
vious controversies with abolitionists, and previous commitment on 
the principles in question, together with a natural anxiety to hav« 
this troublesome subject comfortably disposed ot by a united vote, 
might warp their minds and lead them to sacrifice scruples, and 
doubts, and strong wishes, on the altar of unanimity. He has lived 
in vain who does not know that good men, when greatly anxious to 
promote their peculiar views, may be almost unconsciously sw;iyed 
by motives which are based on wordly expediency. I need only to 
refer to the controversies in the Presbyterian Church, and in Con- 
necticut itself, for illustration. 

• THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED. 

The controversy between the Board and the friends of the slave 
in this and other land««, involves more than a trifling point of church 
discipline, or a practical arrangement of amall moment in the con- 
ducting of missionary operations. A great principle is involved 
2 



14 

which lies at the foundation of the missionary enterprise, and em- 
braces within its circle all liie missions through the world. We must 
be careful in defining a course of treatment for one sin, that we do 
not give directions which will prove bareful in the case of other 
sins. Sin. after all, though differing in modification and form, is es- 
sentially the same, and is to be regarded and treated as a unit. If 
we make exceptions and lay down principles in order to shield one 
class of wrong-doers, we may be called upon to apply our rules in 
another direction, which is not so pleasant. We must remember 
that the degree of light enjoyed, decides the moral character of an 
act, and that some men in the world may commit adultery with a« 
few rebukes of conscience as slaveholders retain their slaves, pro- 
vidtd the missionaries sent to them say as little about the sin of adul- 
tery as they do about the sin of slaveholding. The action of the 
Board has to do with something more than the one sin of slavehold- 
ing. Of this they are aware, for the Report uses this language, — 
'But slavery is not the only social wrong to be met with in the pro- 
gress of the missionary work, and to which the principles adopted 
in prosecuting that work must probably be applied.' It will then be 
seen, that the question before us is fundamental, that whatever may 
be its proper decision, it ought to arrest the attention of the Board, 
and of its supporters; it ought to be fairly, thoroughly and candidly 
discussed, as one on which the prosperity and efficiency of the 
Board in a great measure depends. What is the general principle 
involved ? It is this : Are urong-doers to be received into the Church, 
remaining such, with the hope that ultimately they may be persuaded to 
reform ; and to that end are the missionaries to be silent with regard to 
those forms of wrong-doing, so that, through ignorance of the truth, on 
these points, men may give evidence of conversion, before renouncing the 
deeds inqtiestion? In other words, is the Church to be a vast lazar- 
house, into which the plague-stricken are to be admitted, in order to 
a gradual cure ? It will be noticed that I ask, 'are wrong-doers to be 
received, &c. This language is used advisedly, although Dr. Ba- 
con, in tlie N. Y. Evangelist, attempts to fritter away the slavehold- 
ing which the Board defends, to the mere continuance of a legal re- 
lation which it is out of the power of the master to annihilate. But 
Dr. Bacon's article and the Report, are different documents, though 
agreeing in some points. The Report of the Board, for which the 
Board is responsible, admits that the slaveholding in question is one 
which includes moral wrong, whereas, the bare continuance of ale- 
gal relation, which the master cannot possibly reach, involves no 
wrong at all, on his part. That the Report makes this admission, I 
will show by extracts hereafter, when I come to discuss the legal re- 
lation and kindred topics. Assuming, then, that the Board allows 
that there is wrong-doing in the case of the Cherokee and Choctaw 
slaveholdt rs, when we come to generalize the principle, it stands ai 
I have stated. 

THE BOARD ARE CONSISTENT. 

Those who have the direction of the missions are not weak 
2Den, who know not how to be consistent, or dare not be so. The 



15 

general principle stated above, is clearly before their minds, andthej 
have been carrying out their views in all parts of the world, and in 
reference to wrong-doing of many dift'erent kinds, — at least, so I un- 
derstand the facts, and if I am misinformed, let the initiated cor- 
rect me. 

Let me cite one instance as an example, where the'facts are be- 
lieved to be undeniable. My readers are aware, that in India, the 
population is divided into castes, between which are impassable so- 
cial and religions barriers. Says a writer on this subject, 'Every in- 
dividual remains invariably in the caste in which he was born, prac- 
tices its duties, and is debarred from ever aspiring to a higher, what- 
ever may be his merit or genius.' Thus all motives to exertion are 
annihilated. Such is the contempt of the higher castes for the low- 
er, that they often inflict blows upon them on meeting. The dif- 
ferent castes will not eat with each other. This feature of the Hin- 
doo system, which fills the whole community with bitter prejudice 
and hatred, and is a barrier to all improvement, and the greatest ob- 
stacle to religion, has been allowed by the missionaries of the Board 
in their converts, and what is most horrible, has even been carried 
out at the communion table, where, of all places this side of heaven, 
human brotherhood and equality should be recognized. It is prop- 
er to say, however, that the missionaries of the Board hav« not sin- 
ned alone in this matter. Bishop Corrie declares with regard to 
Episcopal missions, 'The different castes sit on different mats, on 
different sides of the Church ; they approach the Lord's table at dif- 
ferent times, and had once different cups, or changed them before 
the lower classes began to communicate.' Now, who does not feel 
that all this is utterly anti-Chrititian, and if Christ were on earth, 
would be repudiated with horror as contrary to his plainest com- 
mands ? And who does not also see that this abhorrent practice has 
been allowed in the consistent carrying out of the principle which 
underlies the whole Report of the Board? The missionaries, in- 
stead of saying to the professed converts 'You must abandon caste, 
you must receive all men, and especially all Christians, as your 
brethren — the precepts of the Saviour are explicit on this point, 
and you must regard this matter as a test of piety, which, if you can- 
not stand, we must not receive you into the church,' allowed them 
10 enter the church and bring with them all their prejudice and con- 
tempt, and (may 1 not add, as necessarily implied,) hatred ? 

But the Providence of God has taught the missionaries a lesson 
on this subject which has apparently convinced them of the unsound- 
ness of the general principle on which they have acted — a lesson 
which they ought to have learned long since from the Bible, and 
which the Christian world would understand in all its applications, 
were it not for the wretched ideas of expediency which prevail. Re- 
cent communications from the India Missions inform us that the mis- 
sionaries have at last seen their error and are now determinately set- 
ting their faces against caste, and disciplining the church members 
who refuse to abandon it. I venture to predict that the Board will 
in like manner soon see the unsoundness of the same principle as 
applied to slaveholding, and totally abandon it. I want my reader* 
lo keep the general principle, as stated in the early part of thia arti 



16 

ele, before their minds, and remember that it admits of an applica- 
tion to nearly all forms ofoppresi.-ion,8uperstition,'idol<itry andcrims. 
I advocate the opposite principle, that the church should, to a man, 
oppose all forms of wrong-doing, and that he who, after instruc- 
tion, has not piety enough to renounce them, whatever may be his 
other evidences of conversion, ought not to be admitted. Instead 
of adding remarks of my own, I will subjoin the following admira- 
ble statement of Rev. Albert Barnes, who, though illu.^traiing his 
views by the temperance reformation, yel at the end declares that 
they apply to the cause of the slave : — 

" I lay down this position as fully tenable, that, as it is organized 
by its Great Head, the Church has power for reforming mankind 
which no other institution has or can have; and that in all works of 
moral reform itshould stand foremost. It should be united. There 
should be no vacillating plans, and no vacillating members. Such 
should be the character of the Church, that any feasible plan for 
staying the progress of vice, should call to its aid with certainty, an 
efficient coadjutor there. Instead of going on to illustrate this senti- 
ment in a general manner, I shall select one single department of 
the work of reformation, and show what ought to have been 
and what /tas been the influence of the Church there. I allude to 
the temperance reformation." He then lays down three positions : 

"1. That the Church of Christ should have been foremost in this 
work; and its efforts should have been entire and unbroken. 

2. A state of things has grown up in the Church which rendered 
its united and efficient action in the cause, morally impossible. 

3. The consequences were such as any one could have easily- 
foreseen. The Church moved slowly. The members were reluc- 
tant to sacrifice their capital, and abandon their business. The min- 
istry hesitated long before they dared to use language such as would 
be understood. It became necessary to form a society out of the 
Church — though cou)posed, to a great extent, of those who were the 
professed fr.ends of religion — to do what should have been done 
in it." 

After stating his belief that the backwardness of the Church is still 
the great obstacle in the way of the temperance reformalion, he adds, 
— "The same remarks might be made of any and every other need- 
ed reformation. In every thing affecting purity of morals ; chastity 
oflife ; the observance of the Sabbath; the cause of human liber- 
ty ; the freedom of those lield in bondage; the Church holds an al- 
most if not quite controlling power. Evils are always ramified and 
interlocked with each other, and often interlocked with good. Sin 
winds iti way along by matiy a serpentine and subterranean passage 
into the Church, and entwines its roots around the altar, andassumes 
new vigor of growth and a kind of sacredness by lU connection 
there. There is scarcely a form of evil which can be attacked, which 
does not in some way extend itself into the Church. There is scarce- 
ly a steamboat or a railroad car that runs on the Sabbath, that has 
not some connection with some member of the Church ; nor is there 
an attempt at reformation which can be made, wliich does not im- 
pinge t)n some ciisloui in the communion of the faithful. I make' 
not these remarks in the spirit of complainiog. I pretend not evesft 



17 

here to say what is right, or what is wrong. I am illustrating mere- 
ly the poicer which the Church hjlds on moral subjects, and the 
manner in which that |)ovver is exerted. 'The law should go outof 
Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,' and my remark 
now is, that the Church holds the power over all these forms of re- 
formation, and is responsible to her great Lord for the manner in 
which that power is used." 

WILL THE CHURCHES SANCTION IT? 

The longer I reflect on this controversy, the more am I convinced 
that the public mind ought to be held to the general principle stated 
above, as constituting the broad ground of debate. Let me repeat it. 
Here is the question to which the church members of the land are to 
answer yea or nay : 

Are wrong-doers to he received into the Church, remaining such, tcith 
the hope that ultimately they may be persuaded to reform ; and to that 
end. are the missionaries to be silent with regard to these forms of 
wrong-doing, so that, through ignorance of tlie truth, on these points, 
men may give evidence of conversion, before renouncing the deeds in 
question ? 

With regard to this principle, T ask with emphasis, Will the church- 
es sanction it 1 I cannot believe that they will, with a Bible in their 
hands which contains such sentiments as these, "If thy right eye of- 
fend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable 
for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy 
whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend 
thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee ; for it is profitable for thee that 
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body 
should be cast into hell." "He that loveth father and mother more 
than me, is not worthy of me ; and he that loveth son or daughter 
more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his 
cross, and folio weth after me, is not worthy of me-" Is it not evi- 
dent that Jesus Christ refuses to recoguize the piety or church 
membership of those who practice any kjiown sin ? 

But some will stoutly deny that the Report defends the principle 
Btaied. I shall proceed, therefore, to prove that the Report does 
definitely argue in favor of receiving into the church many classes 
of acknowledged wrong-doers — not persons sustaining an abstract re- 
lation, but actual vrrong-doers. It will be found that the passa- 
ges cited all have reference to this general principle, and I hold in 
reserve other extracts which bear on slave-holding specifically, and in 
which immorality is admitted to characterize the act. 

"But slavery is not the only social wrong to be met in the progress 
of the missionary work, and to which the principles which are adop- 
ted in prosecuting that work must probably be applied. There are 
the castes of India, deeply and inveterately inwrought in the very 
texture of society, causing to the mass of the people hereditary and 
deep degradation, leading to the most inhuman and contemptuous fed- 
iwo's and conduct in social life, and presenting most formidable bar- 
riers to every species of improvement. There are also tlie unre- 
strained exactions made in the form of revenue, qr of military or oth- 
tr service, connected with a species of feudalism, pre?aling ia ma^ 
2* 



18 

ny unenlightened communities, which are most umighteous in (heir 
character and f)aralyzing in their influence, and cause unlimited dis- 
tress to individuals and families. There are also those various form:^ 
and degrees of oppression, whether of law or of usage, prevailing un- 
der the arbitrary governments which bear sway over the larger part 
of the earth's surface. So that the principles which we draw from 
the word of God for our guidance as a missionary society, are not 
for use among a few pagan tribes merely, but among nearly all the 
benighted nations of the earth." 

What is the doctrme here taught? That the principle of admit- 
ting partakers in social wrong to the churches in order to their grad- 
ual and ultimate reformation is to be applied generally, as the mis- 
sionary Work comes in contact with the 'organic sins' of the world. 
Some of these, and their characteristics are given, as 'leading to the 
most inhuman and contemptuous feelmgs and conduct,' 'unrestrain- 
ed exactions," 'most unrighteous in their character,' 'various forms 
and degrees of oppression. We are explicitly informed that the 
principles of the Report on the subjewt ofslaveholding 'must proba- 
bly be applied' to all these and kindred forms ot sin. But to make 
'assurance doubly sure,' the report proceeds in the next paragraph 
yet more specifically to declare that those guilty of such wrong-doing 
are to be welcomed to the church. 

"Is this Board, then, in propagating the gospel, to be held respon- 
jsible for directly working out those re-organizations of the social sys- 
tem, without giving Christian truth tiuje to produce its changes in 
the hearts of individuals and in public sentiment, and without being 
allowed to make any practical use of those most effective influences 
which are involved — in respect to all who have grace in their hearts 
— in the special ordinances of the gospel ? Or, should it be found, 
as the result of experience, that souls among the heathen are, in fact, 
regenerated, by the Holy Spirit, /^f/ore llicy are freed from all participa- 
tion intliese social and moral evils, and iliat convincing evidence can 
be given that they are so regenerated, — then may not the master 
and the slave, the ruler and the subject, giving su(^h evidence of spir- 
itual renovation, be all gathered into the same fold of Christ ? And 
may they not all there and in this manner, under proper teaching, 
learn the great lesson (so difficult for partially sanctified men to 
learn) that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jeiv nor Greek, neither 
bond nor free ; but that all are one in him ? And may they not, un- 
der these influences, have eft'ectually nurtured in them those feel- 
ings of brotherly love, and that regard for each other's rights and 
welfare, in which alone is found the remedy for all such evils? — 
Under such influences may not the master be prepared to break tlie bonds 
of the fdave, and the oppressive ruler led to dispaisejustice to the subject, 
and the proud Brahmin fraternally to embrace the man of low caste ; and 
each to do it cheerfully, because it is humane and right, and because tftey 
an all children of the great household of God ? By such influences, 
mainly, is not the great moral transformationto be wroughtin the mas- 
ter and the ruler, in the bondman and the oppressed, all-important 
to both, and the only sure guaranty for permanent improvement in 
the social character and condition of either?" 

Let the churches studjr this paragraph, and particularly the italici' 



19 

zed sentence, and learn from it that the Board advocate the recertr- 
ing into the mission churches, the master who will not 'break the 
bonds of the slave,' the Brahmin who is too 'prouJ' to 'fiaterually 
embrace the man of low caste,' and 'the oppressive ruler' who will 
not 'dispense justice to the subject,' in the hope that under 'such in- 
fluences' as will be gradually brought to bear on them, they will 
'be prepared' to do what is -humane and right.' Was it an assem- 
bly of Christian ministers and laymen that unanimously adopted 
such a doctrine ? I could hardly believe it, did I not know the men^ 
and did I not also remember how even good men may be uncon- 
sciously blinded to plain Bible truth, and reconciled to error.*" But 
the deed having been done, the npresentativcs having acted, the 
friends of the slave appeal to the constituents — to the churches of 
Christ who sustain the Board. Let us apply ihis general principle 
to the temperance cuuse. Would the churches allow their mission- 
aries (home or foreign,) to receive distillers and rumsellers into the 
church with the hope that they may 'be prepared' ultimately to re- 
nounce the traffic ? Why then endorse the sentiment in its other 
application ? 

Theory versus Experience ! or The Board versus its 
Missionaries. 

Not the least noticeable fact in connection with the Report, is its 
utter disregard of experience in a hot zeal to maintain its cherished 
theory. I am reminded thereby of a remark made concerning a 
Boston daily paper which is noted for clinging to old theories in the 
face of multiplied facts, Some one said of it, 'It is very conserva- 
tive.' 'Yes,' was the reply, 'conservative of all antiquated follies/ 
So anxious has the Board been to defend its position that it has shut 
its eyes to the light which past n;issionary experience sheds on the 
general question at issue. Ihe subject of caste in India is a remark- 
able illustration and proof of this charge. As long since as eighteen 
hundred and thirty-four. Bishop Corne, who had charge of the Epis- 
copal (English) missions in India, became from actual observatiori 
convinced thattheallowance of caste was working ruin in the church- 
es ; and in a charge, thus speaks : "The main barrier to all perma- 
nent improvement is, as I trust, in the way of removal— the heathen 
usages of caste in the Christian churches. While the master minds of 
Swartzand Gericke remained to keep down the attendant heathen 



* As some cannot believe that members of the Board would in any circumstan- 
ces, through any power of prejii 'ice, or any desire of unanimity, act on princi- 
ples of worldly expediency, th;; I'olluwiiig iiem of proof, though couched in stron- 
ger lang-uage than I should use, may open the eyes of such to facts. Alvan Stew- 
art, Esq., in a MissionaryConvention at Syracuse, made a speech, from the report 
of which iu the Syracuse Liberty luielli'^encer of Feb. 26th, I exira-t the follow- 
ing : "He went on iu his peculiar and inimitrtble manner, to relate the circumstan- 
ces under which he once heard the caucussing of a committi-e of this t^oard at the 
time of one of its annual meetings. He was aitendiug a public meeting at Phila- 
delphia, and was directed to the wrong apartment. He heard caucussing, on 
principles which he thoughtjought to disgrace any political party; how they would 
do this; and by what means ihey would briug about that ; that they had this and 
t^at great maa oo their side, and all that." 



20 

practices, caste was comparatively harmless. It seemed moreofacivil 
mrttilution. But I rejoice to find that the judgment of all my breth- 
ren — of the whole body of Christian Protestant missionaries without ex- 
ception, concurs now with my own, ll)ai the crisis had arrived, and 
thsii nothing but the total abolition oi' a[[ healhea. usages, connected 
w^ith this anti-chrislian and anti-social system could save these mis- 
sions. An isthmus cast up between Christ and Belial, a bridge left 
standing for retreat to Paganism, a citadel kept erect within the 
Christian enclosure for the great adversary's occupation, is what 
the gospel cannot tolerate. The Jesuits' proceedings in China are 
warnings enough to you." 

Nor is this all the testimony that has been given in. The Board's* 
own missionaries have spoken out on this subject. Rev. Mollis 
lieed, in his memoir of a 'Converted Brahmin,' alludes to the 
churches founded by Swartz and others in Southern India, into 
which also, caste was admitted, and thus testifies as to the results : 

•'They have not, it is feared, in that part of the country, embraced 
Christianity, but Christianity has been made to embrace them; and 
instead of imparting her purity and simplicity, as she is wont to do, 
she has been blinded with the filthy rags of impure rites, and cus- 
loms, and caste, prejudice and superstition ; and she is now exhib- 
ited throughout those regions of darkness more in the form of a lu- 
dicrous comedian, than as an an«el of light." 

Oihers of the Board's missionaries have written home to the Pru- 
dential Committee their solemn convicLion that caste must in every 
i'oim be eradicated from the churches, a judgment to which Dr. 
Scudder of the India Mission, now in this country, has recently given 
utterance, accompanied with a manly and Christian acknowledg- 
ment that a great error had been committed. 

The Watchman of the Valley, Jan. 2L>tli, reports a meeting held 
at Lane Seminary Chapel, at which Rev. Dr. Scudder, more than 
twenty years a missionary among the heathen of Asia, said, as re- 
ported in the Watchman : 

'•Caste is one of the most formidable obstacles which the mis- 
sionary has to encounter. Dr. Scudder is convinced that they 
erred at first in granting any toleration to this absurdity. They 
ought to have required every candidate for the church to renounce 
it. It is now much more difiicult to break it down, and more diffi- 
cult, too, to establish right principles on the subject, than if they had 
begun right. One of the missionaiies — Mr. Winslovv, we think — 
had lately taken the true stand, and excluded it altogether from his 
church. All the missionaries required their communicants to re- 
nounce it HO far as to sit together at the same communion table." 

This, then, is the voice of experience — a voice to which the Board 
would not listen, for they were committed to an opposite theory — 
Consistency required that the principles v^hich shielded slaveholding 
Bhould also extend the same kind of protection to casfe— that thus 
the various classes of wrong-doers might be placed on an equal 
footing. Hence, in opposition to the precepts of the Bible, and in 
equal opposition to the wisdom of experience and in the face oftha 
judgment of the 'whole body of Christian Protestant missionariea 
without exception/ among whom were their own missionahei, thej 



21 

cling to their theory with the graap ofadrowniug man. The Report 
holds this language : 

"But slavery is not the only social wrong to be met in the pro 
gress of the missionary work, and to which the principles which are 
adopted in prosecuting that work must probably be ap[)lied. There 
are the castes of India, deeply and inveterately inwrought in the 
very texture of society, causing to the mass of the people hereditary 
and deep degradation, leading to the most inhuman and contemptuous 
feelings and conduct in social life, and presenting most formidable 
barriers to every species of improvement." 

This is more explicitly reiterated subsequently, where the Report 
tells us that the 'proud Brahmin' is to be received into the church, 
that there he 'may be prepared fraternally to embrace the man of 
low caste !' 

Need we wonder that all the arguments, entreaties and warnings 
ofthe despised abolitionists failed to prevent a unanimous vote for 
the adoption ofthe Report, when they heed so little tlie admoni- 
tions of their missionaries and the lessons of divine Providence 1 

These remarks may show why abolitionists are so strenuous in 
opposing the action ofthe Board. It is because they believewiththe 
Report Itself, that 'the principles adopted must affect the whole 
scheme for evangelizing the world ; and are therefore of the utmost 
importmce, and should be most carefully examined and settled.' — 
Surely it must be no matter of surprise thatabolitionists are alarmed 
and remonstrate, when they conceive that the whole operation of 
the Board is conducted on a wrong principle, of which the admis- 
sion of slaveholders to the mission churches is but one illustration. 
It is time to arouse the members ofthe church when their Mission- 
ary Board unanimously declare that those who refuse 'to break the 
bonds ofthe slave,' 'oppressive rulers,' and 'proud Brahmins' are 
good enough mateiial fora Christian church! 

Some intanate that abolitionists have not read the Report with at- 
tention It may prove to be true that they have read it oftener, and 
studied it more attentively than some who voted for it, and many who 
on a priori grounds would rush to its defence. 

This consideration of the general principle involved in the Re- 
port, will be appreciated by the Christian community, although some 
defenders of the Board are very uneasy about it, and innocently 
wonder why I do not discuss the bare question, 'May a man sustain 
the legal, abstract, technical relation ofslave-owner, and yet be enti- 
tled to church-membership?' as though ihe affirmative of that ques- 
tion were all that the Report implies. Every thing in its season. 
That question, and others, will he considered in due time, and my 
leaders, I doubt not, will prefer to know all that is necessary to a 
full understanding ofthe question at issue. 

1 shall not allow myselCto be diverted from the grand question at 
issue as presented in the Report, by any entreaties ofthe Board'sde- 
ienders. Nor shall I allow myself to be silenced by personal as- 
saults which may be made. It has been gravely charged that I am a 
young man, setting myself immodestly in opposition to the combined 
wisdom of fathers in the ministry. This is no new charge against 
the advocates of truth. It was an accusation brought by VValpole 



22 

against Pitt, to which the latter made this cutting reply, "The atro- 
cious crime of being a young man, which the honorable gentleman 
has with such spirit and decency charged upon me, I shall neither 
attempt to palliate nor deny; but content myself with wishing, that 
I may be one of those whose follies cease with their youth, and not 
of that number whe are ignorant in spite of experietice. Whether 
youth can be imputed to any man as a reproach, I will not, sir, as- 
sume the province of determining — but surely age may become just- 
ly contemptible, if the opportunities it britigs have passed away 
without improvement, and vice appears to prevail when the pas- 
sions have subsided. The wretch who after having seen the conse- 
quences of a thousand errors, continues still to blunder, and whose 
age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of 
either abhorrence or contempt." 

But neither can Walpole claim the honor of originating this 
charge, for to go no farther back, it is asold as the days of Job, to 
whom his accusing 'friend' Eliphaz, the Temanite, said, "What 
knowestihou that we know not .' what understandest thou, which 
is not in us ? With us are both the gray-headed and very aged men 
much older than thy father," (Job, 15 : 9, 10)— a mode of argument 
which caused Job in bitter sarcasm to say, "No doubt but ye are the 
people, and wisdom shall die with you." 

To those who have no other weapon of defence than such an ac- 
cusation, I commend as a subject of reflection, the following extract 
from the diary of President Edwards : "I observe that old men sel- 
dom have any advantage of new discoveries, because they are be- 
side (contrary to) the way of thinking to which they have been so 
long used." I would also ask them to ponder the remark of that 
acute observer of men and things, Dr. Emmons, who though living 
to the advanced age of ninety-five, yet a few years before his death 
gave this advice to a distinguished minister, 'never dispute with a 
man who is over forty years of age" — a caution warranted by the 
reported fact that when the theory of the circulation of the blood 
was first announced, no physician over forty years of age, was 
known to abandon the old and exploded theory and to embrace the 
new and correct one. It may be then an advantage instead of a dis- 
advantage to be a young nmii in these days, when slavery, intempe- 
rance and war are being driven from their 'scriptural' entrench- 
ments. 

The way has now been prepared for a consideration of the spe- 
cific question in dispute as relating to slaveholding. If the remarks 
made upon the general principle are correct, the 8p(!cific quesiioa 
is decided against the Board, on the ground of its anti-Christian re- 
sults, when applied to other forms of wrong-doing. But it will not 
be satisfactory to drop the investigation here, and I therefore pro- 
ceed to 

THE SPECIFIC ISSUE. 

The point on which the Board and the abolitionists are at vari- 
ance, is the question — Whether slaveholders are to be received into the 



23 

Mission Churches ? The Board decide that they may be received, 
and publish :i labored report in defence of that position. Before 
discussing this topic, we need to consider a prehminary question, 



WHO ARE SLAVEHOLDERS? 

There is much diversity in the use of this terno, and many seem 
to be at variance, who if made to define their words, would learn 
ihatthey agree. There have been many definitions of slavery as a 
condition, and of siaveholding as a practice, and in view of that fact, 
one astonishing characteristic of >he Report is, that ii studiously 
avoids defining the practice which it defends. Those who voted for 
the Report, and those who defend it. are by no means agreed as to 
the practice which is to be allowed in the mission churches under 
the ambiguous name of siaveholding. Some of them would permit 
the regular planter with his chattels, claimed and used "as such, to 
come into the sacred inclosure, while others would say, no ; we 
would allow such alone as merely stand in the legal relation of mas- 
ter to slave, but who practically give the slave his rignis. The com- 
mittee who drew up the report ktiew that the word slaveholder was 
ambiguous, for their Chairman, the Rev. Dr. Woods, prepared a 
document for their acioptiou, (which, however, was rejected,) avoid- 
ing almost entirely the words slave and slaveholder, which he read 
to a committee of abolitionists, of whom I was one. I asked him 
why he avoided these terms, and he replied, "I wish to be explicit, 
to discuss things, and not names, and knowing that the words in 
question were ambiguous, I have chosen others, such as servant 
and master." 

Now is it not singular that the Committee, with a Chairman so 
cautious and clear-headed on this subject, should prepare a labored 
document in favor of receiving slaveholders into the mission church- 
es, yet never inform the public of the precise sense in which they 
use the word slaveholder ? Did they call to mind the saying of Dr. 
Emmons, 'Just definitions, like just distinctions, either prevent or 
end disputes,' and lear to define in the commencement of the report, 
lest something should need to come in afterwards which would be 
inconsistent with their explanation? It would have been inter- 
esting to read the Board's definition of slave-holding ; and 
unless I am greatly mistaken, it would 'puzzle a Philadelphia 
lawyer' to make one which would suit all who voted for the 
Report. It was 'icise' to neglect it, forbad it read thus: "The 
elaveholder whom we would admit, is one who has on hisplantation 
practical freemen, merely sustaining to them the legal relation of 
owner, which he cannot dissolve — that being under legislative con- 
trol,' ii would have suited Dr. Bacon, and others., — but then it 
would unfortunately have excluded the particular slaveholders who 
are in the mission churches, and thus have failed of sanctifying the 
practice of the missionaries ; since it can easily be shown, (and will 
be, ere I conclude this investigation) that the mission slaveholders do 
more than sustain this legal relation. But suppose the definition to 
have included not only those who sustain the legal relation of own«r 



24 

ofcertain chattels, called slaves, but also those who proceed to use 
that relation and to treat the slaves accordingly, then the mission 
churches would be included ; but Dr. Bacon, and those whose opin- 
ions he represents, vvould have demurred. It relieved the report of 
ranch ditiiciilty that it attempted no definition. I do not affiru) that 
this fact was foreseen and the Report shaped accordiuiily, but I do 
affirm that the omission was for the Board a happy circumstance, 
and probably secured the unanimous vote which was the occasion 
of so much prenascent anxiety and postnascent joy. 

THE DEFINITION GIVEN. 

It seems to us to define a slaveholder is a very simple matter, and 
that those who protest against their admission into the churches, pre- 
sent a tangil)le proposition to the Board. What is a slave? Eve- 
ry school-btfy knows the distinction between a freeman and a slave. 
He knows that a slave is a man in the power and wholly under the 
direction ofa master, to be used by that master as he sees fit. If he is 
treated kindly it isa favor granted, not a right allowed. His time, labor, 
and talents, are expended lor the master without other return thnnthe 
food and clothing which the master is pleased in his owndiscretion to be- 
slow. Above all, he hasno personal liberty, no conceded rightto go, as 
Carlisle would say, 'anywhere anywhen' — to be his own judge as 
to whom he shall serve, where he shall live, how long he shall re- 
main, and what shall be the reward of his labor. Such a man is a 
slave ; and he who holds, that is detains and keeps him in this depri- 
vation of liberty, is a slaveholder. 

No, — no I — exclaims Dr. Bacon, and a host of others. You do, 
indeed, present a simple and tangible idea, and one apparently war- 
ranted by the composition of the word ; but nevertlieless, we con- 
tend that if the law gives a man the power to use his fellow man as 
a slave, even if he does not exercise that power at ail, he is never- 
theless a slaveholder, and your definition is a mere quibble. Let 
us look into this logomachy— this war of words, it may appear to 
some. 

THE DEFINITION TESTED. 

Dr. Bacon, and his school of definers, .«5ay they use the word slave- 
holder in its every day meaning at the North and South. This I 
utterly deny. I hazard nothing in the assertion, that if Dr. Bacon 
should ask a Southerner for the most abstract definition that he 
could imagine, (and the more abstract the better for the Doctor's 
purpose,) he would never receive an approximation to his own 
definition. The word slaveholder never would convey to the mind 
of a Southerner such an idea as the Dr. contends for, — and why 
should it ? It is representative of no such person as the Dr. con- 
ceives. No such persons exist as those who have the power to 
use men as slaves, but in no instance, and to no degree, exercise 
the power. No statute book at the South sustains the mere legal 
relation doctrine, and it is opposed to every man's common sense. 
Let us lest it by the application of the idea to a parallel word, houst- 



25 

^lolder, — and in ord^r to make an arialagous case, let us suppose an 
instance where the law confers power to do wrong. Suppose a 
poor widow in Hartford has a house which iss her all. The legisla- 
ture pass a law by which the legal title to that honse is iniquitously 
conveyed to me, and I am informed by the proper officer that I may 
consider the house my own. But I, horror stricken with the action 
of a legislature which 'frameth mischief by a law,' declare that I 
will not rec(tgnize the infamous deed, and though I may have a le- 
gal title, yet I will never use it. I go to the widow, who is weep- 
ing over the loss of her earthly all, and say — 'RTadam, cease your 
weeping. This house I will never hold. Use it as long as you 
please. Alter, sell, burn, remove, tear down, as you will, I will not 
interfere, for the action of the legislature is infamous, and my legal 
title a clear fraud.' Now, if I do as I say, who is the man that could 
properly affirm that I hold that widow's house — that I am a fraudu- 
lent householder ? 

Let me apply this case to the question of slaveholding. Let 
it be supposed that in return for some public benefit, the legislature 
of South Carolina give me, by legal act, ten slaves. The fact is 
communicated to me. Detesting the abominable doctrine that man 
can hold property in man, I send word to the legislature that I will 
not be a slaveholder. They reply that the law of the Sate forbids 
my e.\eculingadeed ofeniancipaiion, and I mu.«t remain the legal own- 
€r of'tlie slaves. I go to the slaves and say — 'The laws have created 
the relation of master and slaves between me and you, but I abhor 
and loathe the whole principle and practice of slaveholding. I am 
not permitted by law to dissolve the legal relation — only the legisla- 
ture can do that ; but the actual relation ceases from this moment. 
¥ou may remain with me, or go elsewhere — labor at wages, or for 
such compensation as shall be agreed upon, or be idle; and, as a 
matter of fact, if not in the eye of the law, be your own masters.' 
Now I maintain, that by such a declaration, and an accordant prac* 
tice, I cease to be a slaveholder— I no longer hold, keep, detain 
these men as slaves. They are not slaves, whatever the law may 
entitle them — the idea of their being slaves, is a legal fiction. No 
man can be made a slaveholder against his will. The law may give 
him power to hold slaves, but if he will not hold them, but allows 
them to go where they please, or remain with him as practical free- 
men, he cannot be made a slaveholder, and should not be called 
such. That there are precisely such at the South, I should rejoice 
to learn, though the favorable cases usually presented, including the 
one mentioned by Dr. Bacon in his articles in the N. Y. Evangelist, 
fall far short of such a course. 

LEGAL RELATION AND ORGANIC SIN. 

What is the duty of a man who sustains the legal relation ofslave- 
owner ? Dissolve it, if the law allows : since, in case of his death, 
or bankruptcy, thelaw would seize upon the 'slaves' and hand them 
over mercilessly, to heirs or creditors. If the law forbids legal and 
sechnical emancipation, let the slaves be actual freemen in all re- 

3 



26 

gpects, and warning them of their danger in case of his death or fail- 
ure, let him advise them to go North to a free country. 

I agree, then, with Dr. Bacon, that the 'legal relation' does not 
involve guilt in the individual, j;;rot;i(/e^ he makes no use of that re- 
lation, and does all he can to have the laws repealed which forbid 
the executing a deed which would terminate even t'aat relation — 
And this is all I conceive Dr. Edward Beecher means by the much 
abused and perverted, and probably unhappy phrase, 'organic sin.' 
The man who merely sustains the legal relation of slave-owner, but 
not as 1 should say, of slave-/<oZJcr, Dr. E. Beecher would say was 
involved in 'organic sin,' withoutindividual guilt. There is sin iu 
the case, not in the man, biitin the organized form of society which 
constitutes the legal relation. The guilt rests on the community 
generally, and on each one who does not put forth all his powers 
to rectify the legal organization of society. I must say that anti-sla- 
very papers and orators and preachers, have too hastily condemned 
Dr. Beecher for coining an unhappy name, of which they did not 
or would not understand the real signification. If he has broached 
pro-slavery lieresies aside from this, let him be held accountable. 

THE board's report NOT DEFENDED. 

All these nice distinctions of Dr. Beecher and Dr. Bacon do not, 
however, aid the Board at all, even if I should concede their im- 
portance. They may talk to the day of their death about a kind of 
slaveholder who merely sustains a 'legal relation,' and ought not to 
be excommunicated on that account, — the plain truth is, the Report 
says nothing of such a class, does not pretend that such are the on- 
ly ones who ought to be admitted into the church, but uses language 
at variance with that position. The Report, though it gives no de- 
finition of its own, yet makes assertions which allow us to know 
what it does not mean. I will not vouch, however, that it does not 
contain contradictions, since such maybe detected, if I mistake not, 
even in the able articles of Dr. Bacon in defence of the Board. The 
Dr. in many places, seems to defend only those who have the power 
to do wrong, but refuse to use it, and yet somehow the cases he 
supposes are such as allow the liberty of the slave to be withheld, 
provided he is otherwise 'well-treated,' physically, mentally, and 
morally. I .should like to place extracts from his dilTerent letters 
side by side, were my articles designed as a special review of those 
he has written. But to return, the question is not what Dr. Bacou, 
or any other man has said or written, or printed about slaveholders, 
but what does the Report of the Board say ? What kind of evil- 
doers in this matter of slavery does the Report describe and defend? 
1 think I can prove by fair extracts, that the Report in the main use.s 
slaveholding in the sense I have defined as the true one — defends 
the admission of its practisers into ihe church, and speaks ot2ly ot 
ijieriaia abuses connected with it, as being disciplinable. 



WHAT SLAVEHOLDERS ARE TOLERATED IN THE MISSION 
CHURCH ? 

This question is of great importance in deciding the propriety or 
impropriety of the late action of the Board. Dr. Bacon and others 
have labored through nmneroiis and lengthy articles, to prove that 
certain abstract slaveholders, between whom and their fellow-men 
the laws have established a wrong relation, but who take no advan- 
tage of such wicked laws and oppressive relation, ought not to be 
excluded from the church. In my last number, the question, 
whether the abstract case supposed to be one of shve-holdina- or 
not, was considered and decided in the negative ; but the present 
question still remains to be noticed and answered. Dr. Bacon may 
or may not be correct in defining slaveholding. He is responsible 
only for what he has written. His correct or incorrect views are 
not to be imputed to the Board. He is no ' federal head ' to them ; 
they are not to be condemned for his transgressions, nor is his 
righteousness to be set down to their account. My theology allows 
this in no case, and my common sense forbids it here. The Board 
are to be tried by their Report, which they unanimously adopted, 
and not by Dr. Bacon's amendment, which they did not adopt, nor 
by Dr. Bacon's articles in the New Vork Evangelist, which have 
been written since, and which, in my view, differ from the Report 
in various points. Let Dr. Bacon, or Dr, Beecher, or Dr. Any- 
one-else, advocate the admission of nonentity slaveholders, com- 
posed of no more substantial material than moonshine, and residing 
somewhere near the man in the moon, certainly not in this sublu- 
nary world ; we may be amused or atiVonted at their articles, just as 
we please, the point at issue is aside from their hallucinations. Who 
arc the men whom the Board would retain in the Mission churches ? 
Arc they mere technical slaveholders, or, are they such as I defined in 
my last article, who use the legal relation to hold mm as slaves ? 
Lei my readers keep this point before their minds, and not suffer 
themselves to be diverted from the true issue. If 1 mistake not, the 
Report furnishes the reply to my questions, and to that reply let us 
now attend. 

It will be granted by me that the mere existence of the legal 
relation of master and slave, constituted by law, and beyond the 
control of the individual, does not imply personal guilt in the mas- 
ter, it being supposed that he does not use that relation to hold his 
fellow-men as slaves. This position which I grant. Dr. Bacon and 
ethers 'contend for as defining the kind of ' slaveholders,' as they 
term them, who ought to be admitted into the mission churches. 
Notice, they contend for those whom they and I, absolve from indi- 
vidual guilt. But not so the Report of the Board. It contends for 
those in whose case it admits that there is a moral wrong. All the 
analagous cases quoted by it, prove this, such as polygamy, caste, 
oppressive ruling, war, &c. while specific assertions as to slavehold- 
ing itself contam yet more undeniable evidence. Did the Board 
«and where Dr. Bacon would represent it to stand, the whole 
argument of the Report would need remodelling. It would say — 



28 

We contend for the admission of those who do no wrong, wlio are- 
cliargeab ie with no sin in the matter at issue. But it does not say 
that; it declares, We ought to admit men who are engaged in 
wrong-doing, but upon whom the Gospel has not had time to pro- 
duce its full effect. If I can show by fair extracts 'hat the slave- 
holders tolerated and to be tolerated in the mission churches, are 
those in whose case sin is admitted to exist, then it is evident that 
the Report does not rely on the technical, legal-relation cases, made 
out by Dr. Bacon, in wl)ich latter, no personal guilt can be charged. 
The i3oard defend one course, Dr. Bacon another. To come theiv 
to the proof, does the Report use the word slaveholding throughout. 
as implying wrong-doing, or, dors it regard slaveholding as consist- 
ent with innocence? Let the following extraclsdecide the question, 
it being premised that the Report uses slavery and slaveholding 
synonymously, — though they ought, in propriety, to be distinguish- 
ed, slavery being a mere condition, the creation or perpetuating of 
which, that is, s\ii\e-holding, alone involves sin. 

" Slavery is not the only social wro7jg,^' &c. " Should it be found, 
as the result of experience, that souls among the heathen are, in 
fact, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, before they are freed from all 
participation in these social and moral evils, and that convincing evi- 
dence can be given that they are so regenerated — then may not the 
master atid the slave, the ruler and the subject, giving such evidence 
of spiritual renovation, be all gathered into the same fold of Christ?" 

"Whenever the Gospel is brought to bear upon the community 
where slavery, or any other form of oppression exists." " How far 
holding slaves, or anything else involving what is morally wrong,'^ 
&c. " Strongly as your committee are convinced of the wrong- 
fulness and evil tendencies of slaveholding," &c. "The more they 
study God's me'hod of proceeding in regard to war, slavery, 
polygamy, and other kindred sociahrrowors. as it is unfolded in the 
Bible, the more they are convinced, that dealing with individuals 
implicated in these ?fro»o's," &c, 

From these extracts, it appears that in whatever sense Dr. Bacoiv 
may use the word slaveholding, the Report signified by it a practice 
which involves sin, and when the Board voted unanimously to tol- 
erate slaveholding in the mission churches, they voted to tolerate 
what their own Report uniformly admits to be *a social wrong,' a 
' moral evil,' a 'form of oppression,' ' morally wrong,' * wrongful- 
ness,' &,c. Now, ui' what use is it for Dr. Bacon, and those who 
concur with him, to contend for that which they claim to be consis- 
tent with right, and suppose that they are defending the Board, 
when the latter contend for that which themselves admit to be mor- 
ally wrong? Why should intelligent men thus impose upon 
themselves and others? 

There is yet further evidence in the Report that the particu- 
lar slaveholders now in the mission churches and who are to be re- 
tained there, are not those described by Dr. Bacon as having, but 
not exercising, the power to be oppressive. As a matter of ffict 
they do not now give the slave his rights, and the Report does not 
require that they shall do so hereafter. What does the Report de- 
clare of the present and past treatment of the slaves by their church, 



29 

members? Does it assert that, practically, their rights have been 
sacredly guarded ? Not at all. Truth forbade it. The most they 
eould say in general, was, — ' The condition of the latter (the 
slaves,) has been, they (the missionaries^ think, greatly meliora- 
ted." In plain English this is, — the slaves are not outraged as badly 
as they were before their masters joined the Church— the robbery is 
less extensive, though it still continues to be perpetrated. Retiect 
upon the following extract : 'So far as the amount of labor required 
of their slaves, the food, clothing, and houses furnished for them, 
kind social intercourse with them, regard for the domestic and 
family relations and atfectious, and for their comfort generally and 
opportunities atibrded for religious instruction and worship, are 
concerned, the missionaries think, that instances of serious delin- 
quency are very rare among their church-members^ Then instances 
of 'serious delinquency,' as to providing proper food, clothing, shel- 
ter, domestic comfort, religious instruction and worsliip, do some- 
times occnr ciinoug their church members. Surely, there must be 
something more than the mere possession of power — something 
more burdensome on the slave than a mere legal relation. But the 
Report says that ' instances of serious delinquency are very rare.' 
It does not tell us how often delinquency in the respects named, of 
a more venial character, (in their view,) occurs. For aught we are 
informed there may be a very frequent exercise of unjust power in 
comparatively small matters. Tliis shov/s that on the most favora- 
ble presentation of the facts, enough le:iks out to destroy the force 
of all defence of the Board, based on the right of merely abstract 
slaveholders to be received into tlie churches. Another extract 
places before us a yet more alarming state of things. ' Before it 
was forbidden by law, m 1841, numbers of their slaves were taught 
to read in Sabbath and some in week-day schools ; and such in- 
struction is still to some extent, given in private.' Christians who 
sustain the American Board, look at the facts revealed in this ex- 
tract, — ponder the principle upon which your missionaries have 
acted, and declare whether it is accordant with the Bible. What 
are we told ? That the members of the mission churches were en- 
gaged in the work of teaching the benighted slaves in Sabbath and 
in week-day scliools, to read the Holy Scriptures, when of a sud- 
den the civil authorities, leaving the things that belong unto Caesar, 
and placing unholy hands on the things which belong unto God, 
forbade such instructions. What now, under the guidance of the 
missionaries, who are declared to have imitated the Aposdes, did 
the mission churches do ? Did they stand up, filled with the spirit 
of ' Peter and the other Apostle?,' (Acts 5 : 29.) and say, ' We 
ought to obey God rather than man V Did they persist in instruct- 
ing the slaves? Would to God, for the honor of Christiarfity, they 
had done so, and had taken the consequences as did the Apostles of 
old. But no; Nebuchadnezzer had erected his golden idol and 
they musi bow down. The instruction of the slaves ceased, save 
that it is "to some extent," (how great we are not told,) given in 
private. But the extract also gives a date, 1841, which affords a 
striking comment on a former report of the Board on the same 
subject. In the year 1841 they voted ' that the Board oi Commis- 
si 



30 

^ioners for Foreigu Missions can sustain no relation to slavery 
which impHes approbation of the system, and as a Board, can have 
no connection or sympathy with it.^ At that very time their mission- 
aries were abandoning the slaves to ignorance, praclically prevent- 
ing them from searching the Scriptures, and all in consequence of 
the unrighteous, atheistic laws of the Cherokee and Choctaw 
tribes ? ' No connection or sympathy icith it /' I forbear comment, 
lest indignation should lead me to ' speak .'unadvisedly with my 
lips.' 

What now is marked out by the Board as the future course to be 
pursued in the mission churches? Does the Report declare that 
such wicked laws are not to be considered binding? No. It dis- 
approves of the laws, regrets that they have been passed, but nei- 
ther couniiands nor advises that they be disregarded ! Tiien some- 
thing beyond a lej^al relation is to be toleralled hereafter, and this 
gives a clue to what is meant in another part of the Report by the 
just treatment \\\\\c\i the slaves must have — a treatment not at all in- 
consistent with their being debarred from seaiching the Scriptures! 
But more of this anon. Additional evidence that practical free- 
dom is to be withheld from the slaves hereafter as heretofore, is 
found in the argument of the fieport for admitting slavehoklers 
into the church, when the following language is used. 'Under such 
influences (that is. in the church.) may noi the master be prepared to 
break the bonds of the slave?' From this it will be seen that those 
who are to be admitted in future, are they who hold the slave ' in 
bonds,' which they are to be prepared to break (implying that such 
breaking of bonds is within the master's power,)— a strange way, 
surely, of expressing a mere legal relation, or the mere possession 
without the exercise of power ! Indeed, Dr. Hawesis represented 
by various papers to have admitted that there was nothing in the 
Report inconsistent with the permanent retention of slaveholding 
rn the mission Churches. The phrase quoted above — " May not 
the master be prepared to break the bonds of the slave " by being 
admitted to the church, is in principle happily illustrated by an inci- 
dent recorded in the Presbyterian Herald, published at Louisville, 
Ky. The editor charged Rev. J. L. Forsyth, methodist preacher in 
charge at Fort Gibson, Miss., with admitting an infidel into the 
church. The preacher replies as follows, and I commend the clo- 
sing part of his defence to the Board as a consistent application of 
their principle of -'T^yc/jartn^ " wiong-doers to "cease to do evil 
and to learn to do well," by admitting them into the church. Says 
Mr. Forsyth : 

" Now, according to the above mentioned prudential regulations, 
we did receive a man residing in this county, who had been known 
to be skeptical on the subject of religion, but who, at the time of his 
admission among us, was earnestly seeking for mercy and truth, ho 
did candidly say that his mind was not fully satisfied of the inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures ; but we could not think that, nay, we 
could not think it, a sufficient reason why we should drive him from 
even the outer court of the temple of righteousness and truth; 
rather we think it is a reason why he should draw nigh and see and 
hear and feel for himself, and know that the doctrine is of God. — 



31 

Nbio, sirs, where under heaven are there such spiritiml influmces as in- 
the Church of Christ ? or where are men of a skeptical cast of mind 
mvre likely to Income convinced and converted, than in connection with 
tlwse who feel the quickening power of the Spirit of God '■ " 

Another item ol' proof that those to be received into the mission 
churches are bona titJe slaveholders, as I have defined the word, is 
to be found in an extract from a speech of Dr. Chalmers, incorpor- 
ated in the Report as an exposition of the views of the Board : 

" Yet we must not say of every man born within its territor}'", 
who has grown np familiar with its sickening spectacles, and not 
only by his habits been inured to its transactions and sights, but 
who, by inheritance, is himself the owner of slaves, that, unless he 
make the resolute sacrifice and renounce his property in slaves, he 
is, therefore, not a Chiistian, raid should be treated as an outcast 
from all the distinctions and privileges of Christian society." 

From this it would appear that those who continue to hold their 
fellow-men as 'property,' who are unwilling to 'sacrifice' such 
* property ' in the bones, muscles, hearts and sinews of their fellow- 
immortals, are to enter our mission churches. 

I think by this time, my readers are satisfied as to the kind of 
slaveholders tolerated by the Board. 

There is one passage in the Report which to some may seem to 
be inconsistent with the position taken, and that passage will be 
tjioroughly dissected whfen I come to consider whether slave-AoWi«^ 
should be itself disciplinaltle, or only such bad treatment as may 
incidentally succeed the fact of slaveholding ? 

OUGHT DISCIPLINE ONLY TO REGARD THE TREATMENT OF 
THE SLAVE ? 

The topic introduced to the reader by this inquiiy has an impor- 
tant bearing on the question at issue between the American Board 
and Abolitionists. Abolitionists contend that the fact of slavehold- 
ing furnishes a sufficient ground of discipline and that those who, 
after due admonition and labor will not abandon the practice, ought 
to be excommunicated. The Report on the other hand declares 
that the fact of slaveholding, admitted by itself to be wrong, ought 
not to be considered a valid ground of exclusion, but that church 
discipline, should merely regard the treatment which is superadded. 
Hitherto I have been treating of the course to be pursued in the 
admission of new members; now, the inquiry relates to the dispo- 
sal of slaveholders already in the churches, though at the same time 
it settles a principle which applies also to the first class ; since, if 
the mere fact of slaveholding is not such a disorderly walk as to call 
for notice when the slaveholder is in the church, neither ought it to 
exclude him if he is an applicant for admission. The Report takes 
the position that the bad treatment of the slave which is superadded 
to the fact of holding, is the only ground of discipline. While it 
uniformly defends tiieir admission into the church as far as their 
being slaveholders is concerned, it professes to have bowels of 
mercy for the slave, contiuning such in the hands of its members. I 



32 



wil! quote the part of the report which bears on this topic, a pari 
which mauy thoughtlessly regard as giving toit an anti-slavery char- 
acter. 

'•Should any church member who has servants (a euphonism for 
slaves) under him be chargeable with cruelty, injustice, aud unkind- 
iiess towards tliem ; shosild he neglect what is essential to their 
present comfort or eternal welfare ; or should he in auy manner 
transgress the piuticular iustructions which the Apostles give con- 
cerning the conduct of a uKister, he would be admonished by the 
church, and unless he should repent, he would be excommunica- 
ted. Such appears from their communications to be the views of 
our missionaries ; and such a course they think theirchurches would 
sustain." 

This is very well as far as it goes, but it stops short of what the 
eternal principles of right demand. It does not require the master 
to give the slave his li()erty, notwithstanding the fair-sounding words 
with regard to 'cruelty, injustice and unkindness.' It puts the 
poor slave into the hand of one who has no right to his labor, and 
then smoothly adds, 'Be sure you treat him well and avoid all cru- 
elty, injustice and unkindness !' Now were icords do not satisfy re- 
flecting men, until they know in what sense they are used, how 
much they imply, what they are understood to mean by those from 
whose lijis they fall, and also by those to whom they are addressed. 
But not to multiply general observations,*I will specify my objec- 
tions to the rule laid down in the above extract, and which for the 
sake of brevity I shall term the treatment-rule. 

1. It is hih/inite and ambiguous. To a northern man it would 
mean one thing, to a Southerner, quite another thing. An anti-sla- 
very friend of the Board would place an interpretation upon it 
widely diffring from that ofa pro slavery supporter. A. thinks it 
actually requires the slaveholder to abandon every thing but the le- 
gal relation which is out of his reach and can only be dissolved by 
law. B. on the other hand finds no evidence to support that posi- 
tion, and considers it ns perfecliy consistent with claiming and using 
slaveholding power. 1 must expiess my surprise that a rule of dis- 
cipline should be couched whully in general terms, which the Board 
uiusthave known v/ould be variously interpreted. If the rule aims 
at malpractice, why not specify some of the prominent forms which 
that malpractice assumes ^ It might have taken a few more lines, 
but what of that, when the happiness of muititudes hangs upon 
them, ft cannot be said by way of excuse that this consideration 
did not occur to the comuiiitee. I deny it. It was laid before them 
when they had a meeting which I have before referred to, with a 
committee of abolitionists, of which Dr. Ide, was Chairman. Dr. 
Woods and Rev. JMr. Sandford of the Board's Committee were 
present. Dr. Woods read the document which he had prepared 
for the Board, which the committee did not adopt, but which con- 
tained a passage so nearly the same as the one quoted from the Re- 
port, if indeed it be not identical, that I can but think it was trans- 
ferred from the one docinnent to the other. I objected to it then as 
too general, and asked the Doctor to add something to this effect, 
which would be specific, 'W any church member shall buy, sell, ot 



33 

hold his fellow-men as property, if he shall be guilty of whipping' 
them, if he shall pursue and recapture them when they escape, if he 
shall neglect to pay them such fair compensation for their labor as 
may be agreed upon, &c., &c., he shall be disciplined.' But no 
guch specification is found in the report, and I cannot conjecture 
why it should be avoided unless it would make the meaning ^oo ex- 
plicit and all men would see that to comply would be to give the 
slave practically his freedom, and thus it would fail of securing a 
unanimous vote in the Board, besides calling up opposition from 
slaveholders at llie South. It is of no use to say that we are oppo- 
sed to the exercise of 'cruelty, injustice and unkindness* towards 
the slave, when men differ so much about what these mean, as ap- 
plied to slavery . /would mean by them the annihilation of slave- 
holding, and perhaps some of the Board voted with that understand- 
ing, but others would by no means include so much. Let me 
interpret and apply the rule in its widest signification, and I would 
be satisfied ; but 1 am confident that such was not the intent of the 
framers. They were willing to pass by slaveholding to regulate the 
treatment which the slave, as a slave, is to receive. Even when 
viewed in that light the rule is ambiguous. What is kind and just 
treatment of a slave, the right to hold hmi being first conceded ? 
The man of New England birth and education will give one de- 
scription, the Marylander or Kentuckian, another, the South Caro- 
linian or Georgian, a third, and the sugar-planter of Louisiana, a 
fourth. Each Southerner avers that he treats his slaves well, is 
guilty of no cruelty, yet can tell of others who do the contrary. 
Capt. Basil Hal! writes in his Travels, 'The Virginian told me sad 
stories of the way in which the South Carolinians used their 
negroes; but when I reached that State I heard such language as 
follows, ' Wait till you go to Georgia, there you will see what the 
slaves suffer.' On reaching Savannah, however, the ball was tossed 
along to the Westward. ' Oh, sir, you have no idea how ill the 
slaves are treated in Louisiana.' Such facts are notorious, and in- 
view of them, ii is supremely ridiculous to make a rule couched in 
general terms, without specification, or illustration. Let me tell the 
Board that' cruelty, injustice and unkindness,' may mean something 
different in the Choctaw and Cherokee country from what it does in 
Brooklyn. I am afraid that even the interpretation of this ambigu- 
ous rule which obtained at Brooklyn amid so umny ministers who 
'are as much opposed to slavery as anybody,' is exceedingly loose, 
if we may judge Irom one fact. The rule declares that the master 
will be liable to discipline 'should he neglect what is essential to 
their present comfort, or theii' eternal welfare.'' Now a man with 
aati-slavery principles would interpret this to mean that the 
slave was to enjoy full religious principles as we do at the 
North. Alas, poor simpleton of an abolitionist, how could you be 
so ignorant of hermeneutics? Did you not notice the word 'essew- 
tial?' A world of meaning is wrapped up in that polysyllable. 
The Report so anxious to prevent 'cruelty, nijustice and unkind- 
ness,' does not direct that the slave shall enjoy whatever h promo- 
tive of his 'eternal welfare,' but only what is 'essential' to it.' 
Thus if oral teaching suffices to lake him to heaven, why no mattsr 



34 

about bis learning to reaJ the Bible, 'in Sabbath and weekly day- 
schools,' — that is not ^essential' to his 'eternal welfare.' and besides 
it was 'forbidden by law in 1841 !' Hence the Report, as before 
mentioned, regrets that such an atheistic law was passed, but neither 
corninands, advises, nor intimates that it ought to be disregarded, and 
the slave be enabled to 'search the Scriptures.' If now the Board 
interpret their own rule so loosely, what are we to expect will be its 
meaning among Choctaw and Cherokee slaveholders ? When so 
many interests for time and eternity, depend upon the rale adopted 
by the Board, the form which it assumes seems like trifling, and it is 
a sufficient objection, were no other conceivable, that it is indefinite 
and ambiguous. This leads me to a second and kindred objection,, 
viz : 

2. The rule is no protection to the slave hi a slaveholding commu- 
nity. We look upon slaves as men, and account the treatment 
which they receive as the treatment of men. But the slaveholder 
views the slave in a different aspect. To him he is a piece of prop- 
erty — avaluablb working animal, for whom he or his father .gave sO 
many hundred dollars. Hence, just and kind treatment means to a 
slaveholder, something entirely different from what it means to us ; 
just as we consider treatment kind and just to a dog or horse which- 
would excite our indignation if exf)erienced by a man. The starting 
point of interpretation is so different in the mind of the two classes, 
that when we urge the slaveholder t© be just and kind to his slaves, 
and to treat them well, he assents to it all, and yet by no means agrees 
with us. The fact is, that so accustomed do the masters become to 
the infliction of what we consider cruel treatment, that it ceases to be 
eruel in their estimation, and without any intention to deceive, they 
protest that they are kind and even indulgent ; just as we would re- 
sent the charge of cruelty to a dog, because we chastised him at times 
with a whip and even kicked him occasionally out of doors, when he 
would not otherwise go. To show the application of this principle, 
let me quote an anecdote from 'Slavery as It Is.' Judge Diirell of 
N. H., was on one occasion denouncing the abolitionists because 
they falsely accused slaveholders of ill-treating the slaves. Said he : 

"In going through all the states I visited, I do not now remember 
a single instance of cruel treatment. Indeed, I remember of seeing 
but one nigger struck, during my whole journey. There was one 
instance. We were riding in the stage, pretty early one morning, 
and we met a black fellow, driving a span of horses, and a load, (I 
think he said) of hay. The fellow turned out before we got to him, 
clean down into the ditch, as far as he could get. He knew, you 
see, what to depend on, if he did not give the road. Our driver, as 
we passed the fellow, fetched him a smart crack with his whip across 
the chops. He did not make anv noise, though I guess it hurt him 
some — he grinned. Oh, no ! These fellows exaggerate. The nig- 
gers, as a general thing, are kindlv treated. There may be excep- 
tions, but I saw nothing of it." (By the way, the Judge did not know 
there were any abolitionists present.) 'What did you do to the dri- 
ver,' said N. p. Rogers, who was present, 'for striking '.hat man ?'' 
*Do !' said he, 'I did nothing to him, to be sure.' 'What did you> 



35 

s<T^ to him, sir ? ' 'Nothing,' he replied: 'I said nothing to hira.' 
'What did the other passengers do ?' 'Nothing, gir,' said the 
Judge. 'Tliefeliow turned out the white of his eye, buthedidnol 
make any noise.' ' Did the driver say anything, Judge, when he 
struck the man?' 'Nothing,' said the Judge, ' only he damned 
him, and told him he'd learn him to keep out of the reach of his 
whip.' 'Sir,' said Rogers, ' if George Tiionipson had told this 
story, in the warmth of an anii-slavery speech, I should scarcely 
have credited it. I have attended mnny anti-slavery meetings, and 
i never heard an instance of such cold-blooded, icanton, insolent, dia- 
bolical cruelty as tliis ; and, sir, if I live to attend another nieet- 
ing, I shall relate this, and give Judge Durell's name as a witness of 
it.' 

This shows the effect even on a Northerner, when he for a time 
forgets that slaves are men. Now the rule of the Board declines 
requiring the master to give the slave his liberty, thinks he is not 
'prepared to break the bonds of the slave,' and contents itself with 
saying that he must treat them well in all respects, or else be disci- 
j^lined. Who are to judge of the good or ill treatment? The 
church living in a slaveholding community and embracing slave- 
lioldeis, and the missionaries who likeall Southern ministers uncon- 
sciously to themselves, are inured to slaveholding practices and 
feelings. There is reason to fear that their interpretation of the 
general terms of the rule will be like tlieir interpretation of the 
* instructions which the apostles give concerning the conduct of a 
master,' to which this sage rule refers. Indeed this whole rule 
reminds me of the plan of getting Arminians to sign a Caivinistic 
creed by expressincr it entirely in Scripture language, it being 
known that none will object to Scripture, and yet ail will give it 
their own peculiar interpretation. So with this rule. To a North- 
erner it seems to give the slave his rights, while the Choctaw and 
Cherokee slaveholders will assent to it in a different sense, with as 
much con)placency as a South Carolina slaveholder assents to the 
words of the Declaration of Independence, ' All men are created 
equal,' &c. The rule is worthless as regards the protection of the 
slave. 

3. The nde could mthdiffic7il{y, if at all, he enforced, through lack 
of testimony. In case of ill-treatment, (granting for argument's 
sake that the word is definite,) how shall the slaveholder be brought 
to justice? Wiio are to testify against him'? The witnesses, if 
any, will be his own slaves ; but is any man so simple as to sup- 
pose that after receiving abuse from the master, they will complain 
of him to the church, knowing that, as his chattels, he can pnnish 
them with exemplary severity 1 It will do very well, where all are 
free, to talk of disciplining men for not treating each other well, but 
to talk of exercising such supervision over the master, when the 
testimony must come from those in his power, is to utter nonsense, 
and to apply Dr. Bacon's classical phrase to the Board's own posi- 
tion, 'the churches won't stand such nonsense.' There has been 
experience of that fact in the Sandwich Islands. Dr. Lafou, who 
was a Missionary there, said at the Syra,cuse Convention, — . 



36 

' He was opposed to taking in Chiefd, because they owned slaves. 
He acted upon that principle, nniil two Chiefs came to him with 
letters of recommendation, which, as a Presbyterian, he could not 
disregard. Tney soon had a "spree,"' bathed in the sea in an inde- 
cent manner; got drunk; of all of which he was informed by for- 
eigners. He could not take their testimony ; the natives told him 
tile Chiefs were drunk, but when informed that they must testify, 
they all said they did not see it; others saw them ; — and not a man 
or woman could be found who would testify to the facts as of their 
own knowledge. He obtained a decision of the Session, two elders 
and himselt", to cut them off from the church. They could not get 
a church to stand up and vote a liigh Chief out. The Princess 
Henrietta was guilty of higli sins ; yet a Missionary would not 
think of getting a vote of her people to expel her from the church. 
The Episcopal mode sometimes took the place of Congregational- 
ism ; the minister took the place of Bishop; read them out of the 
church ; and then fell back upon Congregationalism — just as circum- 
stances required.' 

The same difficulty would be experienced among Choctaws and 
Cherokes. IS'o slave with a whipping in prospect, would testify 
against his master, and we may be sure that a master who would 
maltreat his slaves, would inflict additional cruelty if they dared to 
complain. The rule will be inefficacious from the nature of the 
case. 

4. The rule is unjust to the master. If we concede, as this rule of 
the Board does, that the master may continue to 1wtd the slave, and 
that such sldv ekulding is not a disciplinable offence, it is the height 
of injustice and folly to declare that he shall not resort to severity 
when he finds occasion. The Supreme Court of the United States 
liave decided that when the Cousiituiion bestows a certain power 
on the Federal Government, it is of course implied that the Gov- 
ernment have also conceded to them the means necessary to exer- 
cise that power. Justice and consistency require such a construc- 
tion. The case before us is similar. It is mockery and child's play- 
to say the least, to tell the Choctaw or Cherokee slaveholder, 
You may retain your slaves, but you must not use the means 
necessary to retain them ! Abolitionists and slaveholders, both 
contend, that the severity which the rule of the Board condemns, is 
a necessary appendage of slaveliolding, and that if the one be allow- 
ed, the other must be also.*' Like the Siamese twins, they are ultii- 
ted in life and cannot be parted at death. Do my readers need to 
be told that the slave is not contented with bondage, is not willing 
to wait, until by church ordinances the master can ' be prepared to 
break his bonds?' He will, of course, be refractory, will refuse to 
work, will at times rebel against the authority of the master, backed 
lip though it may be by church ordinances. What is to be done? 
He must, of cour?e, be whipped, or chained, or placed intlie stocks, 
or liranded. Probably he will turn fugitive and run away from this 
church influence, fearing that his master will die before being suf!i- 



' In proof of this, see Wayland's Letter to Fuller,?. 23, and " Barnes on Sla- 
very," pp. 201, 346. 



37 

denlly ' prepared to break the bonds,' especially as during the 
thirty years that the mission has been established, the first cpse is yet 
to be found in which a church member has emancipated his slaves! 
The Report of the Board which mentions all the favorable facts 
that could be collected, could not, certainly did not, refer to one 
such instance. What is the master to do about this slave who has 
broken his own bonds and is hastening, by wearisome night marches, 
to the North, to invoke the protection of some member of the 
Board who is ' as much opposed to slavery as anybody?' To use 
the language of Dr. Chalmers, so approvingly quoted in the Re- 
port, the master cannot be expected to ' make the resolute sacrifice 
and renounce his properly ;' hence he must mount his horse, and if 
need be, out with his blood-hounds, and scour the country, until 
' his property ' is secured. It is of no use to protest agiinst the 
whipping, and the branding which will be inflicted when the fugi- 
tive is brought back — it is necessary to inspire terror in him and in 
the others, to maintain plantation discipline, which at the South as 
winked at and protected by the church, may, with terrible meaning, 
be called church discipline for offending slave members. Yoa may 
cry shame ! and call upon the master to desist, but in doing so you 
betray the weakness of your cause, the inconsistency of your argu- 
ments. You might as well tell a man that he has a right to go to a 
certain place, but must neither ride, walk, nor be carried — that he 
has a right to keep a horse, but must never apply the whip if he is 
lazy, and never go after him if he runs off, as to tell the slaveholder 
that he may retain his slaves, but must not do that which is necessa- 
ry to retaining them ! Let my readers notice the position, that if it 
be allowable to deprive men of their liberty, then it is allow able to 
nse that degree of vigilance and severity which is requisite to gain 
that end. We concede, for instance, that it is allowable to deprive 
jnen of their liberty on account of crime, and to shut theni up in 
prison. Hence we build prisons, provide bolts, chains, handcuffs, 
cells, and high walls. We place sentinels on guard, with loaded 
rauskets to shoot down any prisoner who may attempt to escape. 
No man in his senses will condemn the means and defend the end, 
knowing that the former is necessary to the latter. Let my oppo- 
nents be logically consistent, and if they allow of slaveholding, go 
for the whole — for whatever ignorance, heathenism, and suffering is 
indispensable to the holding of slaves. Be just to the master, either 
require him to renounce slaveholding or allow him free from church 
censure, to use such measures, however severe, as are requisite for 
the safe continuance of the practice. 

5. / object again, that even when as a slave, the man is ' well treat- 
ed,'' he is still robbed of his liberty, and the robber ought to be excluded 
from the church. This famous rule goes on the principle that liberty 
is, per se, of little or no value — thatjplenty of food for the stomach, 
ample cloth for the back, some measure of instruction for the mind, 
and a freedom from blows, is enough of good for this life, and the 
fact that liberty is withheld, is such a trifle that it need not ho taken 
into account. Ignoble calculation ! The authors and de.'enders of 
such a sentiment, I fezr, would sell their l)irthright, like Esau, for a 
mess of pottage. Little do buch sympathize with our noble Deck- 
4 



38 

ration of Independence, which declares that the right to hberty is 
inahenable, and places it by the side of the right to life. Little can 
they conceive the meaning of the impassioned prayer of Patrick 
Henry, 'Give me liberty, or give me death.' The aspiration of 
their grovelling souls would be, ' Give us enough to eat, drink and 
wear, and make us comfortable, and then bind on tl.e chains if you 
will.' 

In opposition to such debased views, in coincidence with the 
longings and promptings of njanhood, and in sympathy with the 
Apostle, who said (2 Cor. 11 : 20) ' For ye suffer if a man bring 
vou into bondage,' I assert, that aside from all questions of mere 
treatment, liberty is the next highest right to life, and he who 
deprives me of it and makes me a slave is a manstealer, and as 
such, should be refused admission to the church of Christ. I 
appeal to my readers. Who of you would consent to be a slave, 
even if assured of kind treatment? Who would surrender liberty 
for such a paltry price ' To him who would insult you with the 
proposal, your reply would be, ' JXever ! I will sooner starve, and 
be free, than live a pampered slave.' My readers. Do unto others 
as you would have them do to you. As you would contend for 
your own rights, so contend for those of the slave. Why discipline 
a man for unkind treatment, and allow the prior and the higher 
crime of slaveholding to go uncondemned ? So to judge, is as 
though a church should pass over an act of seduction, of which a 
member had been guilty, and excommunicate him because he turned 
his victim out of doors ! This leads me to remark, 

6. I okject to the rule as prescribing a peculiar treatment for the sin 
of slaveholding, such as is not applied in similar cases. The common 
sense of every man tells him that to hold a slave is to rob a man of 
liberty. Why treat such a robber difterenily from other robbers ? 
What would the American Board say if it should come to their ears 
that in a region of country where sheep-stealing and horse-stealing 
wer3 common, their churches had received the thieves into the 
church? Would they prepare and adopt a report which should 
contain sentiments such as these ? ' Let the thieves who in conse- 
quence of the silence of the missionaries as to the sin of sheep and 
horse-stealing, have not fully realized their guilt, and who conse- 
quently may give evidence of conversion, be received into the 
church, with the hope that eventually they may be prepared to 
restore the stolen property to the rightful owner. In the mean 
time, however, charge the thieves that they treat the sheep and 
horses well, that they give them plenty to eat and drink, allow them 
shelter in the winter, do not shear the sheep loo close, nor ride the 
horses too far and too fast. If they refuse compliance with tliis 
rule, let ihem be excommunicated.' Christian reader, what kind oi" 
morality is that ? It is the morality of the Report of the American 
Board, so far as I can understand it. The doctrine is — allow the 
master to hold his slave, but charge him to treat the slave well. 
Why not apply this rule to all cases of robbery, seduction, &c.? I 
do not wonder at the strenuous efforts of some defenders of the 
Board to make out slaveholding to be a ' peculiar ' sin — it oughtto 
be, lo demand such peculiar discipline. 



39 



' THE GROUND OF ABOLITIONISTS. 

What now is the position of abolitionists? They urge the 
Board to strike at the root of the whole matter, by exscinding the 
practice of slaveholding itself Do this, and as a matter of course, 
the consequences fall with their cause. Then a blow will be struck 
rt sin in all its forms. The churches will be purged from impurity 
as far as this subject is concerned. Let the missionaries preach 
against slnve-holding, let the churches refuse to admit additional 
?i[a.ve-holders, and begin the usual process of discipline with those 
that are now within their pale. We do not ask that they shall per- 
form impossibilities, we do not require that the legal relation shall 
cease, if it is out of the masters poioer to dissolve it, but we do de- 
mand in the name of bleeding humanity and a God of right, that as 
a matter of fact, the slave shall be free to go or stay, to work or 
not to wo»k, to read, to write, to enjoy all manner of privileges as 
do laborers at the North, Why should so reasonable a demand \m 
refused? Why bend the kuee to wrong, and compromise with- 
iniquity ? Why declare that slaveholding is a peculiar sin, when its 
peculiarity lies in its peerless enormity, in the power and number 
and current respectability of its practisers and defenders, and the 
abominable means used for its protection ? 

CONSEQUENCES TO THE MISSION. 

The Report rests the defence of the Board partly on the proba- 
ble consequences to the missmn among the Cherokee and Choc- 
taw Indians, should anti-slavery principles be carried out. Its lan- 
guage is, ' The Committee believe, in agreement with the unani- 
mous opinion of the missionaries, that any express direction from 
this Board requiring them to adopt a course of proceeding on this 
subject essentially different from that which they have hitherto, 
pursued, would be fraught with disastrous consequences to the mis' 
sion, to the Indians, and to the African race among them.' At tho 
close of the Report, an extract from a letter of one of the mission- 
aries is given, implying that opposition on their part to slave- 
holding would drive them from the nation. With regard to this 
plea, Is'iall make only a few brief remarks. 

1. This is the old plan for a continuance of wrong-doing. Thd 
inexpediency of a course in itself right, is clamorously urged as a 
reason for not complying with the principles of the divine law. 

2. The great question to be settled is, What is right ? Deter- 
mine that, and we need not regard the consequences. What pro- 
priety is there in meeting our arguments to prove the wrongfulness 
of the course adopted, by the plea that the success of the mission 
depends upon it ? The success of the mission depends on wrong, 
does it? Then it is time that it was broken up. 

3. It would be no new thing in the history of Christianity for a 
mission to be broken up. and yet it retnains to be proved that tem- 
porary fi^ilures, occasioned by adherence to principle, are at all detri- 
mental in the final result. Paul was driven from more than one 



40 

city for preaching against the practices of the inhabitants, but who 
thi'nkvS the cause of Christ was injured thereby ? Would it have 
been better to have compromised with idolators and remained in 
quiet? It would not be the first mission that the Board have aban- 
doied, should the Indians expel the missionaries, and why should 
they represent it as so disastrous an event? 

4. If the mission should be broken up by the authorities of the 
land, there is reason to believe that the moral etfeci would be great 
and beneficial. It would arouse our churches to an interest in the 
slave question, such as ihey have not before evinced — it would be a 
heavy condemnation of slaveholding which would be felt by the 
Southern churches— it would be a noble testimony before the world 
of our opposition to sin. It would be such an event as the Saviour 
contemplated when he uttered the solemn words, ' Whosoever shall 
not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that 
house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I eay unto 
you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomor- 
rah, in the day of judgment, than for that city.' 

When the Board shall take a righteous position, and the mission- 
aries shall have been driven from the Indian country for protesting 
against the enslaving of God's children, \ propose that, at the ensu- 
ing meeting of the Board. Dr. Bacon, or Dr. Hawes, or some other 
distinguished minister, preach by appointment, from Acts]3: 49 — 
51, 'And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the 
region, but the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable vvomen, 
and the chief men of the city, and raised a persecution against Paul 
and Barnabas, and expelled them out of the coast. But they shook 
off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.' 
Let this be done in the spirit of the primitive church, and the result 
vould be the same as described in the 52d verse. ' And the disci- 
ples were filled wiifj joy and the Holy Ghost.' 

5. No man is competent to declare that the ultimate consequences 
of an abandonment of that mission would be worse than the ulti- 
mate consequences of adherence to the present policy of the Board. 
In contending for a principle, we must look beyond the incidental 
evils which may arise. The war of the Revolution was attended 
with many and "sad evils, but the final results are such as no friend 
of the world regrets The question whether the Americaii Board 
as the organ of the American churches, is to propagate a gospel that 
will liberate or enslave the world, is of more importance than the 
question whether a partial, pro-slavery Gospel shall continue to be 
preached among certain Indian tribes. 

THE APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE. 

It will not be expected that at this late moment, 1 should enter 
upon the scriptural argument concerning slavery. That discussion 
would need a series of articles for itself alone. Indeed, the Board 
does not quote a single passage of Scripture in support of its posi- 
tions, but shnply referd in general to Apostolic instructions. All, 
consequently, that appertams to my duty at present is, to throw out 
a few hints which bear on this subject. 

1. Was Christianity designed to be antinomian? There is noth- 
ing more susceptible of proof, than that slaveholding is a vijtual 



41 

repeal of the decalogue, Did the Apostles promulgate a religrou» 
system which was to be a practical reversal of the commandments? 

2. Was Christianity a retrograde movement, compared with 
Judaism ? The decalogue, the Mosaic system, the writings of the 
prophets, are condemnatory of slaveholding. Did Christ lead the 
world backward on the subject of morals ? Was he not, on the con- 
trary, more strict than Moses, as is evinced by the Sermon on the 
Mount ? 

3. Does not the New Testament every where represent persist- 
ance in known sin as inconsistent with discipleship ? If so, where 
would that rule place those who, after due instruction, persist in 
elaveholding? 

4. Can it be proved that the Apostles did not substantially take, 
the course I have recommended, viz : enjoin nothing about the 
legal relation, which was controlled then, as now, by government, but 
give such instructions as, fairly carried out, would, as a matter of 
fact, give freedom to the slaves, though their technical name might 

remain .' 

5. Are we not to have reference to the increase of light in the 
world on moral subjects ? Are polygamists to be admitted now, 
because they in all probability existed in the primitive church, as 
may be gathered from the injunction that bishops and deacons must 
have only one wife, implying that private members were tolerated in 
polygamy ? Does not the language of Paul apply — ' The times of 
this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men, every- 
where, to repent'/' Are our duties the same as to the admission of 
distillers and rumsellers now, that they were twenty-five years since? 
If it be then provable that there were slaveholders in the primitive 
chuiches, in days of darkness, under despotic Governments, with 
universal ignorance on the subject of human rights, does it follow 
that the same course should be pursued now, in altered circumstan- 
ces? Is A. D 184S, the same as A. D. 1? Is slaveholding to be 
treateil in the same manner now when the indignation of the world 
is poured upon it, as it was when few, if any, questioned its author- 
ity ?* 



* I have previously adverted to the fact that the American Board have taken a 
position opposed tothe growing convictions of philanthropists and Christiansin 
all countries. Two recent occurrences forcibly illustrate this remark. Since 
the meeting of the Board, the Bey of Tunis, a Mohammedan, has abolished sla- 
very throughout his dominions ! 

In August, of the present year, a World's Convention is to be held in London, 
to manifest and encourage the unity of Prote>tant Christendom. Provisional 
Committees of Arrangemenis have been appointed in the principal cities of Eng- 
land and Scotland, representin? nearly or quite twenty denominations. At a 
joint meeting of all these Committees, at Bir mingham, after four hours discussion, 
t\iey unanimously adopted the following resolution : 

" That wliile this Committee deem it unnecessary and inexpedient to enter into 
any question at presont on tlie subject of slavehoi'Iing or on the difficult circum- 
stances in which Christian breihren may be placed in countries wliere the law of 
slavery prevails; they are of opinion thatinvitations ought not to be sentto indi- 
viduals w!io, whether by their own fa;ilt or otherwise, may be in the unhappy po- 
sition of holding their fellow men as slaves." 

As some stress is laid on the unanimity of the American Board, will my readers 
notice th^ unanimous action of a boJy of Christians, who, iVom their posi- 
tion would act unbiassed. If slaveholders are not fit to sit in a Coaventiou, are 
ihey suitable subjects for churchmembership.? 
4* 



42 



ORGANIZATION OF NEW CHURCHES FAVORABI.E TC 
PURITY. 

There is, in my view, a special aggravation of the pro-slavery ac- 
tion of the Board in the fact that their churches are comparatively 
young. Does any one need to be informed that with a church, as 
with an individual, it is easier tocorrect evils in youth than in old age? 
Dr. Beecher, in his articles in the Bostcn Recorder, has said that 
while he would have charity for churches recently formed amid hea- 
thenism, he would have little or none for the churches of the South 
who have tolerated slaveholding for two hundred years. With all 
deference to Dr. Beecher's superior wisdom, I must beg leave to dif- 
fer, and ♦o assert that churches where error has been fortified by long 
indulgence and immemorial custom, and prejudices which are the 
growth of successive generations, it must be a more difficult under- 
taking to secure a return to rectitude, than it would be to organize on 
correct principles at first. If the Dr. doubts, let him go into the for- 
est and try his hand at straightening the gnarled and twisted oak of a 
hundred years standing, and then set out a young sapling and train it 
as he wishes. I think every minister at the South would declare 
that while in his view the old slaveholding churches cannot be indu- 
ced to abandon that sin, and he has therefore ceased to urge the duty, 
he would regard it as a thousand fold more feasible to organize a new 
church, which should start with the fixed determination to admit no 
slaveholder to membership. I contend, therefore, that the Board are 
peculiarly guilty in foundmg new cAm/tAc5 on wrong principles, They 
ought, in view of the seared consciences of the old churches at the 
South, and the seeming impossibility of leading them to repentance, 
to take warning, and in conducting their missions where slavery ex- 
ists, to set their faces firmly against it from the first. But this they 
refuse to do. They are going on to increase the number of churches 
to be reformed — preparing a most difficult wonc for future accom- 
plishment. Here I may incidentally say, that the Home Missionary 
Society are doing the same evil work by assisting slaveholding church- 
es in Kentucky, Missouri, &c. 

Let us derive an illustration from the Temperance reformation. 
The time was, when distillers and rumsellers were in all o-jr church- 
es. My readers know with what difficulty our communion has been 
purified — what strife, debate, contention, heart-burning and division 
were occasioned. At the present time, all new churches refuse to 
receive such persons, and thus avoid the evil. What now would be 
said if our missionaries, as they come in contact with intemperance 
on heathen shores, should receive distillers and rumsellers into the 
mission churches ? They do not so act — they organize on correct 
principles at first, and thus forestall difficulty. They find the heathen 
in darkness on that subject, but as they themselves have light, they 
communicate knowledge and act from the light they have, instead of 
conforming their conduct to the ignorance of the heathen. Can any 
defender of the Board give me a valid reason why the missionaries 
should not act ia precisely the same way with regard to slavehold- 



43 

But, as I have before remarked, the Board seem to despise facts, 
and to regard only their pro-slavery theory. Lest my language 
should seem harsh, let me remind my readers of the opportunity the 
Board has had oflearning that it is easier to begin right than to re- 
form after beginning wrong. I have previously adverted to the fact 
that the mission churches m India acting on the principle of the Re- 
port, admitted caste into their inclosure, hoping eventually to induce 
their members to abandon it. They have failed in ttiat effort and 
have of late been forced to deal with it directly as a disciplinable ot'- 
fence. Dr. Scuddcr of that mission, has recently said at a public 
meeting that 'he is convinced that they erred at first, in granting any 
toleration to this absurdity ; that they ought to have required every 
candidate for the church to renounce it and that it is now much more 
difficult to break it doicn, and more difficult too, to establish right prin- 
ciples on the subject, than if they had begun right.' When will the 
Board learn that both the Word and the Providence of God declare 
that 'He that walketh uprightly walketh surely.' 

A SOLEMN QUESTION. 

The facts that connect our professed Christianity v/ith human op- 
pression are such, that the intelligent and benevolent mind mournful- 
ly revolves the question, Shall Christianity enslave the world ? An- 
swer me, ye friends of the oppressed, into whose ears the cries and 
groans of the slave enter, and who weep in secret places over his 
cruel sufferings, .shall oppression find its strong hold in the religion of 
the merciful Jesus, who came to bind up the broken hearted, to pro- 
claim liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to them 
that are bound ? As our missionaries multiply through the world, 
and heathenism and Mohammedanism fade away before Christianity, 
shall the only change the poor bondman experiences be the fact that 
his master has changed his creed r 

Think not that this is a question bounded by the limits of 
the Cherokee and Choctaw country. I have proved that the Report 
of the Board admits that the general principle involved, embraces 
sins which encircle the globe ; such as war, caste, oppressive ruling 
and polygamy. But even the specific position assumed in favor of 
slaveholders, applies to various other missions established and to be 
established. Notice the coolness with which this important fact i» 
acknowledged in the Report. 'The evil of slavery will probably be 
met in some form in nearly every part of the great missionary field, 
and the principles adopted must affect the whole scheme for evangel- 
izing the world.' Again, 'Involuntary servitude is believed to per- 
vade nearly the whole African continei^t, though with widely differ- 
ent degrees of severity. In some form it exists in many, if not all 
parts of India. It pervades Siam and nearly all Mohammedan com- 
munities, and it will probably be found, in some of its modifications, 
in China and Japan,' 

The policy of the Board is to establish slaveholding churches 
throughout the world, to erect the most formidal)le bulwark around 
€lavery that human hands can rear : for all experience in the cause of 



44 

emancipation proves that the oppositon of the professedly Christian 
church is the most serious obstacle to be removed. Let me fortify 
this position by a short extract from a sermon of Rev. Albert Barnes 
preached last year. 

"Advert for a moment to the efforts which are made to remove 
slavery from the world, and to the hindrances which exist to all ef- 
forts which can be made to remove it, m consequence of the relation 
of the church to the system. Reflect hovv many members of the 
Christian Church, and how many ministers of the Gospel, are owners 
of slaves ; how little effort is made by the great mass to dissociate 
themselves from the system ; how many are there, even in the pul- 
pit, who open'y advocate it ; how much identified the system is with 
all the plans of gain, and all the views of comfort and ease of domes- 
tic life among many members of the Church ; and how faint and fee- 
ble is the voice of condemnation of the system uttered by the great 
mass, even of those who have no connection with it ; and how often 
the language of apology is heard, even then : and it is easy to see 
how ineffectual must be all their efforts to remove this great evil 
from the world. The language of the ministry, and the practice of 
church members, give such a sanction to this enormous evil as could 
be derived from no other source, and such as is useless to attempt to 
convince the world of the evil. Against all this influence in the 
Church in favor of the systetn, how hopeless are all attempts against 
it ; while yet no one can doubt that the Church of Christ in this land 
has power to revolutionize the whole public sentiment on the subject, 
and, to hasten the hour when, in the United States and their territo- 
ries, the last shackle of the slave shall fall." 

Again. "What is it that lends the most efficient sanction to sla- 
very in the United States ■? What is it that does most to keep the 
public conscience at ease on the subject ? What is it that renders 
abortive all efforts to remove the evil? I am not ignorant that the 
laws sustain the system, and that supposed interest contributes to it, 
and that the love of idleness, and the love of power, and the love of 
base passions which the system engenders, and that a show of argu- 
ments, opaque and inconclusive on one side of a certain line, but 
bright as noon day on the other, does much to support the system. 
But after all, the most efficient of all supports — the thing which 
most directly interferes with all attempts at reformation ; that which 
gives the greatest quietus to the conscience, if it does not furnish the 
most satisfactory argument to the understanding, is the fact that the 
system is countenanced by good men ; that bishops, and priests, and 
deacons, that ministers and elders, that Sunday School teachers and 
exhorters, that pi(,us matrons and heiresses, are the holders of slaves, 
and that the ecclesiastical bodies of the land address no language of 
rebuke or entreaty to their consciences."* 

I appeal to my readers, Shall the Board, under the delusion that 
they are promoting thereby the cause of (Christ, be allowed to place 
as a guard before the sin of slaveholding, (that *sum of all viUanies,' 
as John Wesley called it) — the army of their churches ? 



*See also Barnes' new work 'On Slavery,* pp. 382—384. 

LofC. 



45 



BBNEVOLENT SOCIETIES ACCOUNTABLE. 

It is incumbent on the churches to be jealous of their liberties.—"- 
There is no ultimate triumph of Christianity without freedom in the 
church. Our fathers realized this truth, and contended nobly for 
their religious rights, though they periled all in the struggle. The 
fundamental principle of religious liberty forbids a control of the 
church, by any power out of itself, 'nor is there a material difference 
whether the power that seeks control or that actually controls, be a 
creature of the state or of self creation. Its origin is of little conse- 
quence — the fact, that it undertakes to dictate to the church, itself 
not being the church, is the aspect of danger ; just as the particular 
country trom which an invading army comes, is of small importance, 
compared with its numbers, its disciplme, its equipments, its resour- 
ces, and the fact that it seeks to impose laws, or a government upon 
us, to which we have never assented. 

The churches of the United States are sufficiently on their guard 
against the encroachments of the civil power, but 1 question wheth- 
er they are awake to danger which threatens from another quarter, 
even from bodies which profess to be religious in their character, and 
to be nothing more than the servants of the churches. I refer to the 
Benevolent Societies of our land. I do not intend to charge them 
with seeking to enslave ihe church, but I do fear that practically the 
liberties of the churches will perish, or will be unconsciously aban- 
doned, in consequence of the growing power and increasing author- 
ity of the Societies. 

I shall no doubt be told that there can be no ground for fear, since 
those societies are managed by the pastors and members of the 
churches. There would be more truth in that assertion were the 
definite article dropped before 'pastors,' and were the word 'mana- 
ged,' emphasized. Certain men, a certain class of pastors and 
church members control these societies, and I fear lest a love of pow- 
er and a determination not to be thwarted in their favorite plans and 
measures, may induce in the societies an overawing influence, and in 
the churches a craven spirit of universal compliance. The fact is, 
that though the societies d.x& professedlij and nominally the servants 
of the churches, in reality, they are masters. They feel in a great 
measure irresponsible, and they act accordingly. Those who pre- 
sume to differ, are whipped (by denunciation) into compliance, or 
else discarded and thrown down from a good standing in their denom- 
ination. Thus the scene witnessed by Solomon, is re-enacted. 
(Eccl. 10 : 7) 'I have seen servants (benevolent societies) upon 
horses, and princes (the churches) walking as servants upon the 
earth' — a sight so unbecoming, that the wise man said of it elsewhere, 
(Prov. 19: 10, 30 : 21, 22) 'Delight is not seemly for a fool ; much 
less for a servant to have rule over priuces.' 'For three things the 
earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear ; for a servant 
when he reigneth,* &c. 

Allusion may be made to a few facts in this place. It was discov- 
ered that the American Tract Society had been mutilating the 
books which it republished, changing and suppressing doctrinal sen- 



46 

tiraents of standard authors, as also historical facts. The Synod of 
New York and New Jersey had their attention called to the matter, 
when the Rev. Dr. McAuley, at that time one of the Executive 
Committee of the Society rose and told the Synod that they had no 
business to be prying into the concerns of the Tract Society — the 
Society was not responsible to them, &c. When the Synod persist- 
ed, backed up by other ecclesiastical bodies, it is well known that 
prominent othcers of the Society, verbally and by letter, assailed the 
motives of those who wished an investigation, and defied their ef- 
forts, declaring, to use the language of one letter, that they would 
carry their point 'despite the opposition of doctors of divinity, theo- 
logical professors, and sniveling ministers.' And they have carried 
theii point, and are yet pursuing the same course of alteration and 
mutilation, having achieved a victory over their 'masters' (!) and 
gained their desired position of practical irresponsibility. This for 
the professed 'servants of the churches' is emphatically, 'high life 
below stairs.' 

A similar course is, in effect, pursued by the American Board, not 
by official act, but through its chief supporters. The Board was or- 
ganized to be a channel of communication with the heathen world 
for such as chose to use it. They professed a willingness to be stew- 
ards and almoners of our bounty. The churches of the Presbyteri- 
an and Congregational order fell into the arrangement. Of late 
many have discovered that the Board have acted on wrong princi- 
ples with regard to slaveholding, have fallen back on their church 
rights, have remonstrated with the Board, and have withdrawn 
their funds. What has been the consequence ? Those churches 
and ministers who have so acted, have been denounced, and have 
lost caste, just as though the question what society they would use 
for missionary purposes had any thing more to do with church 
standing, than the question what domestics they would en)ploy in 
their families. What would be thought if a minister should lose 
caste among his brethren because he chose to employ colored ser- 
vants, while they preferred the Irish ? Missionary Societies are the 
servants of the churches, and we may employ one or another as we 
see fit, and no man, no body of men has a right to call us to account 
for preferring one and rejecting the other; and the fact that such an 
ado is made because some oppose the Board, proves that instead of 
regarding itself as a servant, it is putting on the air of a master. — 
Churches of Christ, maintain your liberty unimpaired. Hold your 
servants to an account. Dismiss them without hesitation when you 
see cause, and allow no power behind the thfone, no authority in 
theory or in fact out of the church. I feel that the American Board 
ought particularly to be watched, because it is in no manner respon- 
sible to the churches, being a close, self-perpetuating corporation, 
in whose concerns none have a vote but a privileged class who have 
been elected 'corporate members.' Who are these corporate mem- 
bers ? I will not speak disrespectfully of them, but I assert, that 
they are selected from ihe class who are the last to be affected by a 
new moral reformation — the last to feel the influence of the church- 
es. An analysis of the Board will prove this. The Board consist* 
of 183 members. Of these twenty-nine ate Presidents and Profe»- 



47 

sors of Colleges and Theological Seminaries, eighty-four are Doe- 
tors of Divinity, and nineteen are 'Honorables.' A too small portion 
of the ministers are pastors, and it would seem that the readiest way 
of becoming a Corporate Member is to become, if possible, a Pro- 
fessor, President, Doctor of Divinity, or an Honorable. These are 
doubtless good men, and yet are of that peculiar class whose posi- 
tion and circumstances make them especially averse to reforms, and 
peculiarly 'conservative.'' There is only one way for the churches to 
reach the Board, and that is by the apparently ungracious mode of 
withdrawing pecuniary support. If abolitionists resort to that, it is 
because it is the only course the organization of the Board allows. 

HOW 6HALL THE BOARD EE TREATED ? 

I have not space to discuss this point at length, but would briefly 
rera-^rk, 

1. In the matter of contributions, I would give them a 'terrible 
letting alone,' at least for the present. 

2. In the matter of words, I would remonstrate steadily, by 
speech, by pen, by press, till their unchristian position is abandoned. 

3. In prayer I would supplicate God to enlighten the Board, that 
thustheirinfluenccmay not be added to the weight tliatalreadycrushes 
the slave. In the mean while, I would patronize the Union Missionary 
Society, the West Indian Comn)iltee, the Western Evangelical 
Missionary Society, and other bodies which propagate a 'pure and 
undefiled religion.' The withdrawal of one or two hundred church- 
es would do more to open the eyes of the Board than any other 
measure, just as one day's endurance of slavery would enlighten 
the minds of pro-slavery men, more than scores of arguments. 

In conclusion, let me add, that if any one undertakes a reply to 
these articles, (and the columns of anti-slavery newspapers, unlike 
those of the other side, are always open to opponents,) let him ar- 
gue for the Board as represented in their oicn Report unanimously 
adopted, for I have carefully adhered to that documem when speak- 
iag ofthe Board. 



LB-JL'CS 



012 026 709 7 # 




